ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2020
Tube Revision Outcomes for Exposure with Different Repair Techniques.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of tube extender use in glaucoma management: insights from a cohort study.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Partial-Thickness Corneal Patch Graft with Fibrin Glue for Tube Shunt Exposure: Case Report.Case reports in ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to report our experience with eyes that presented with an initial GDD exposure and their subsequent outcome in terms of re-exposure.
methodsA retrospective review of charts of 42 patients (43 eyes) who presented with a GDD exposure during the period 2008-2015 in a tertiary eye care center was performed. Demographic data, past ocular history, pre-operative and post-operative information including the surgical technique of GDD surgery and exposure repair were recorded. The patients were followed for further exposure to the date of the last follow-up clinic visit. For each type of repair technique, details were collected on risk and timing of GDD exposure. The baseline features of eyes that had further exposure after initial exposure were compared to eyes without further exposure.
resultsForty-three eyes were identified which had repair after an initial exposure. The mean ± SD age was 54 ± 27 years. Of the GDDs, Ahmed FP7 was performed in 31 eyes, Ahmed FP8 in two eyes, Ahmed S2 in five eyes, Krupin valve in two eyes and Baerveldt 350 GDD in three eyes. The methods of repair and the relative risk [95% CI] of re-exposure were: conjunctival closure only (n=4; RR=2.10 [0.84-5.23]); repair with patch graft and conjunctival repair (n=18), RR=1.24 [0.51-3.01]; tube repositioning, use of patch graft and conjunctival repair (n=14), RR=1.0; tube removal with replacement in a different quadrant, patch graft and conjunctival repair (n=3), RR=1.87 [0.64-5.48]. After the first exposure, 18 eyes had a second re-exposure, four eyes had a third re-exposure, and 1 eye had a fourth exposure.
conclusionsThe GDD exposure rates at our institution are consistent with other reports. Lack of a patch graft for repair is associated with a two-fold risk of subsequent re-exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.