This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (22)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Glaucoma  • Facial Plastic Surgery  • Biomaterials and Implants  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Ramesh S. Ayyala, MD, FRCS, FRCOphth; Lynn E. Harman, MD; B. Michelini-Norris, PhD; Leo E. Ondrovic, MSES; Edward Haller; Curtis E. Margo, MD, MPH; Scott X. Stevens, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:233-236.

Objectives  To compare the inflammatory reaction associated with the insertion of silicone and polypropylene endplates and endplates made of a new biocompatible polymer, Vivathane, in the rabbit subconjunctival space.

Methods  Similar-sized endplates made of 3 different biomaterials were sutured to the sclera in the superotemporal quadrant of the rabbit eye. Thirty eyes of 15 albino New Zealand rabbits were randomly assigned to the 3 groups. Conjunctival vascular hyperemia was graded in a masked fashion among groups. At the end of 3 weeks, the enucleated eyes were examined histologically and using scanning electron microscopy.

Results  Polypropylene and Vivathane were associated with significantly more inflammation in clinical observations and based on histological grading. Silicone was associated with the least amount of inflammation. Three polypropylene and 1 Vivathane plate were extruded between the second and third week.

Conclusions  Silicone is the most inert of the 3 materials tested. Inflammation associated with biomaterials may contribute to the failure of the glaucoma drainage devices.

Clinical Relevance  Bleb inflammation may be related to the biomaterial being used as the endplate. Endplates should be handled carefully during surgery to avoid creating rough spots.

From the Departments of Ophthalmology (Drs Ayyala, Harman, Michelini-Norris, and Stevens), Surgery (Mr Ondrovic), and Pathology (Mr Haller), University of South Florida, Tampa; and the Department of Ophthalmology, Watson Clinic, Lakeland, Fla (Dr Margo).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Histological Biocompatibility of a Stainless Steel Miniature Glaucoma Drainage Device in Humans: A Case Report
De Feo et al.
Toxicol Pathol 2009;37:512-516.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparison of polypropylene and silicone Ahmed valve survival 2 years following implantation in the first 2 years of life
Khan and Al-Mobarak
Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:791-794.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Creation of a Drug-Coated Glaucoma Drainage Device Using Polymer Technology: In Vitro and In Vivo Studies
Sahiner et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:448-453.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Ex-PRESS implant
Mermoud
Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89:396-397.
FULL TEXT  

Comparison of Different Biomaterials for Glaucoma Drainage Devices: Part 2
Ayyala et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118:1081-1084.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT