 |
|
Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Implantation in African American and White Patients
Kyoko Ishida, MD;
Peter A. Netland, MD, PhD
Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:800-806.
Objective To evaluate the results of Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implantation in African American and white patients.
Methods In this retrospective, comparative case-control study, we reviewed 86 eyes of 86 patients, comparing the surgical outcomes in white patients (n = 43) with matched African American patients (n = 43). Success was defined as an intraocular pressure (IOP) between 6 mm Hg and 21 mm Hg with or without glaucoma medicines, without further glaucoma surgery, and without loss of light perception (definition 1) and an IOP between 6 mm Hg and 21 mm Hg and achievement of a 20% reduction in IOP from the preoperative level (definition 2).
Results The mean follow-up was 2.3 years for white patients and 2.5 years for African American patients (P = .50). At the last follow-up, the mean ± SD IOP was 15.3 ± 3.3 mm Hg and 15.3 ± 3.5 mm Hg (P = .77) in white and African American patients, respectively. Life table analysis showed a significantly lower success rate for African American patients compared with white patients by both definition 1 (P = .03) and definition 2 (P = .006). Cox proportional hazards regression analysis detected African American race as a risk factor for surgical failure by both definitions. Visual outcomes and complications were comparable between the 2 groups.
Conclusion African American patients have a greater risk of surgical failure after Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implantation compared with white patients.
Author Affiliations: Hamilton Eye Institute, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis (Drs Ishida and Netland), and Department of Ophthalmology, Gifu Graduate University School of Medicine, Gifu, Japan (Dr Ishida).
RELATED ARTICLE
Why Did My Surgery Fail, Doc?
Eve J. Higginbotham
Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124(6):903-904.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Why did my surgery fail, doc?
Higginbotham
Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124:903-904.
FULL TEXT
|
