About MEAJO | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions to authors | Online submission | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Login 
Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology
Users Online: 1137   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 23  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 110-114

EX-PRESS® Implant position and function: Comparative evaluation with ultrasound biomicroscopy and optical coherence tomography


1 Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Heraklion, Heraklion; Department of Refractive Surgery, Institute of Vision and Optics, Crete, Greece
2 Department of Refractive Surgery, Institute of Vision and Optics, Crete, Greece
3 Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Heraklion, Heraklion, Greece

Correspondence Address:
Efstathios T Detorakis
Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Heraklion, 71110, Heraklion, Crete
Greece
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0974-9233.171774

Rights and Permissions

Purpose: This study evaluated the feasibility of anterior segment optical coherence tomography (OCT) and ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) for the imaging of EX-PRESS® implant. Materials and Methods: This nonrandomized comparative case series was performed at the Department of Ophthalmology of the University Hospital of Heraklion, Crete, Greece. The Ellex Eye Cubed (40 MHz) UBM and the Zeiss Visante OCT systems were used. The filtering bleb morphology (BL), aqueous outflow (AS), and tube position (TB) were evaluated by two independent observers using a quality scale of 1 (worst) to 4 (best). Data were also collected on corneal and iris clearance from the tip of the tube (CC and IC, respectively). Data from both the devices were statistically analyzed. P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results: Ten eyes of 10 patients (6 males) with EX-PRESS® implant were examined. TB, AS, and BL scores using UBM were 2.40 ± 0.39, 3.45 ± 0.72, and 2.45 ± 0.64, respectively. TB, AS, and BL scores for OCT were 3.35 ± 0.41, 1.55 ± 0.43, and 2.55 ± 0.55, respectively. AS was significantly higher with UBM whereas the opposite was true for TB. Differences in BL between OCT and UBM were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Imaging of the EX-PRESS® implant is feasible with both UBM and OCT. Both modalities allow visualization of the position of the implant tube in relation to the iris or cornea and delineate the internal structure of the filtering bleb.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3780    
    Printed232    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded116    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal