Supraciliary Implant Placement and Postoperative Suprachoroidal Hemorrhage After Nonpenetrating Deep Sclerectomy. Issue 4 (April 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rebolleda, Gema; Martínez Compadre, Alberto; Navero, J.M.; Antón, Alfonso
• Is Part Of: Journal of glaucoma. Volume 27:Issue 4(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018-04
• Subjects: glaucoma -- deep sclerectomy -- suprachoroidal hemorrhage; Glaucoma -- Periodicals; 617.741005
• DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000896
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1057-0829

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: The purpose if this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and risk factors of 3 eyes (3 patients), with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), in whom a postoperative suprachoroidal hemorrhage (SCH) occurred after a previous nonpenetrating deep sclerectomy (NPDS) augmented with a supraciliary nonabsorbable implant placement. Methods and Surgical Technique: This is a report of 3 eyes of the 3 patients who underwent NPDS in 3 different centers, by 3 experienced surgeons, and were the only ones to develop postoperative SCH in the last 18 years. All were operated with a one-third thickness outer scleral flap measuring 5×5 mm 2 dissected until it reached 1 to 2 mm into the clear cornea. Mitomycin C (MMC, 0.02%) was applied for 1 minute and an inner scleral flap measuring 4×4 mm 2 was dissected leaving only 10% of scleral thickness below. Then, the inner wall of Schlemm canal was removed. A supraciliary implant, T-flux (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Zeiss, Spain) in case 2 and Esnoper (AJL Ophthalmics SA, Miñano, Spain) in cases 1 and 3, was placed through a full-thickness escleral incission 2 mm behind the scleral spur. Results: Three eyes with uncontrolled primary open-angle glaucoma had a delayed SCH after an uneventful NPDS. Time lapse from filtering surgery to the SCH ranged from 12 hours in case number 1, to 3 weeks in case 3. Several risk factors for DSH were present, but the only common clinical feature for all of them, was the nonabsorbable implant that was placed in the supraciliary space. A Hema implant (Esnoper) was used in 2 eyes (cases 1 and 3), and T-flux, was implanted in the case 2. Case 1 required vitreoretinal surgery and had poor visual outcome, but cases 2 and 3 recovered with conservative treatment. Conclusions: Although taking the potential bias arising from the nature of the current cases report into consideration, supraciliary placement of the implant in NPDS could be a risk factor for SCH. Consequently, it seems reasonable to avoid it, especially in the presence of other best recognized factors.