SynthesisGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2025
Ahmed and baerveldt in glaucoma surgery: what is the safest choice? - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking intraocular pressure: What does tonometry actually measure?Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Comparative In Vitro Evaluation of Tube Resistance in Glaucoma Drainage Devices with Intraluminal Polypropylene Threads.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Outcomes of the Paul Glaucoma Implant in an Ambispective Multicenter Study: 12-Month Follow-Up.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Predictive factors for the success of the Paul glaucoma implant: a one-year multicenter prospective study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsGlaucoma drainage devices (GDDs) are essential in managing complex glaucoma cases. This review focuses on the Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) and Baerveldt glaucoma implant (BGI), the most commonly used GDDs. We aim to evaluate complications associated with AGV and BGI, particularly post-operative hypotony.
methodsWe systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRSs) comparing AGV and BGI. The primary outcome was persistent hypotony (IOP < 5 mmHg). Secondary outcomes included hypotony maculopathy, choroidal effusion, suprachoroidal hemorrhage, vision loss, cystoid macular edema, diplopia, corneal decompensation, endophthalmitis, hyphema, further surgery for IOP control, tube interventions, exposure, and occlusion.
resultsThirteen studies (4 RCTs, 9 NRSs) with 2,513 eyes were analyzed. AGV was associated with a lower incidence of persistent hypotony in RCTs (0.6% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.006), choroidal effusion (4.95% vs. 15.8%, p < 0.0001), vision loss (9% vs. 18.9%, p = 0.01), and cystoid macular edema (2.5% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.009). BGI showed a lower need for further surgery to control IOP in RCTs (14.5% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.01). No significant differences were found for other outcomes, including suprachoroidal hemorrhage, corneal decompensation, and tube-related complications.
conclusionAGV seems to offers a safer profile with fewer hypotony-related complications compared to BGI. Personalized device selection is crucial for optimizing glaucoma surgery outcomes. Further high-quality, well-designed studies are needed to validate those results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40164796What 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.