ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2025
Primary implantation of glaucoma drainage device in secondary glaucoma: Comparison of Aurolab aqueous drainage implant versus Ahmed glaucoma valve.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Nd: YAG laser rescue of sulcus-placed glaucoma drainage device tube occlusion: a two-case series.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glaucoma drainage devices are invaluable in the management of secondary/ refractory glaucomas. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Aurolab Aqueous Drainage Implant (AADI) and the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve (AGV) in filtration-surgery-naïve secondary glaucoma eyes. For this purpose, a retrospective, comparative review was conducted on patients with secondary glaucoma (open and closed) who underwent primary tube procedures, either AADI or AGV. The primary outcome measure was intraocular pressure (IOP), and secondary measures included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), number of antiglaucoma medications (AGMs), and complications. This study included 59 eyes in the AADI group with a mean follow-up of 20.3 ± 12.9 months and 61 eyes in the AGV group with a mean follow-up of 19.8 ± 11.8 months. Preoperative IOP, AGM use, and BCVA did not significantly differ between the groups. However, at the last visit, both IOP and AGM use were significantly lower in the AADI group (12.9 ± 3.7 mmHg and 0.6 ± 0.9 vs. 15.7 ± 2.7 and 1.8 ± 1.0 respectively, all p < .001). Moreover, the AADI group exhibited a significantly higher rate of complete success (57.6%) compared to the AGV group (14.7%, p < .001); corresponding qualified success was 91.5% and 80.3%. Serious complication rates were comparable between the two groups. In conclusion, toth AADI and AGV procedures effectively reduced IOP and the need for AGMs. However, the reductions were significantly greater in the AADI group, which also showed a higher rate of complete success. Considering its affordability, AADI could have a substantial positive impact, particularly in resource-constrained settings.
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.