Current drainage devices for glaucoma: biological challenges and design concepts
Keywords:
glaucoma, drainage devices for glaucoma surgery, fibrosis, biomaterial, micro-shunt, minimally invasive surgeryAbstract
The goal of glaucoma treatment is to preserve patients’ vision and quality of life by preventing the progression of glaucomatous optic neuropathy and minimizing associated adverse effects. This is achieved by maintaining an appropriate level of intraocular pressure, stabilizing the retinal nerve fiber layer, and preventing visual field loss. Treatment options available for patients with open-angle glaucoma include: medication, laser trabeculoplasty, and incisional glaucoma surgery. An essential component of surgical treatment for glaucoma is the use of drainage devices. Subconjunctival micro-shunts, Schlemm’s canal restoration devices, suprachoroidal drainage systems, and conventional plate-based implants have all been developed as a result of major advances in implant design. A systematic review of the literature was conducted on studies published between 2015 and 2025. The analysis shows that, although different types of implants use different aqueous humor drainage pathways, the key factor influencing long-term efficacy remains biological in nature. The conceptual classification also includes the valve-equipped antiglaucomatous shunt developed at the Department of Ophthalmology of “Nicolae Testemitanu” SUMPh, which can be considered a drainage device with partial flow regulation at the implant level via an integrated valve mechanism. The proposed shunt represents a conceptual attempt to partially transfer resistance regulation from the biological capsule to flow control at the implant level. Although this approach appears promising from a theoretical prespective, further experimental and clinical studies are required to evaluate its long-term safety and efficacy.
References
1. Quigley, H., Broman, A.T. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):262-267. doi:10.1136/bjo.2005.081224.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2005.081224
2. Allison, K., Patel, D., Alabi, O. Epidemiology of Glaucoma: The Past, Present, and Predictions for the Future. Cureus. 2020;12(11). doi:10.7759/cureus.11686.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.11686
3. Bagnasco, L., Bagnis, A., Bonzano, C. European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma. 5th ed. Savona: PubliComm; 2020.
4. Tham, Y.C., Li, X., Wong, T.Y., et al. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(11):2081-2090. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013
5. Bourne, R.R.A., Jonas, J.B., Friedman, D., Nangia, V., et al. Global estimates on the number of people blind or visually impaired by glaucoma: A meta-analysis from 2000 to 2020. Eye. 2024;38(11):2036. doi:10.1038/s41433-024-02995-5.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-02995-5
6. Asrani, S.G., McGlumphy, E.J., Al-Aswad, L.A., Chaya, C.J., et al. The relationship between intraocular pressure and glaucoma: An evolving concept. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2024;103:101303. doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2024.101303.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2024.101303
7. Kavitha, S., Usha Tejaswini, S., Venkatesh, R., Zebardast, N. Wound modulation in glaucoma surgery: The role of anti-scarring agents. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2024;72(3):320. doi:10.4103/IJO.IJO_2013_23.
https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_2013_23
8. Pereira, I.C.F., van de Wijdeven, R., Wyss, H.M., et al. Conventional glaucoma implants and the new MIGS devices: a comprehensive review of current options and future directions. Eye. 2021;35(12):3202. doi:10.1038/s41433-021-01595-x.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021-01595-x
9. Rotsos, T., Tsioga, A., Andreanos, K., et al. Managing high risk glaucoma with the Ahmed valve implant: 20 years of experience. Int J Ophthalmol. 2018;11(2):240-244. doi:10.18240/ijo.2018.02.10.
https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2018.02.10
10. Schwartz, K.S., Lee, R.K., Gedde, S.J. Glaucoma drainage implants: a critical comparison of types. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006;17(2):181-189. doi:10.1097/01.icu.0000193080.55240.7e.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.icu.0000193080.55240.7e
11. Purtskhvanidze, K., Saeger, M., Treumer, F., et al. Long-term results of glaucoma drainage device surgery. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019;19(1):14. doi:10.1186/s12886-019-1027-z.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-019-1027-z
12. Tunga, H., Shome, N., Shafiee, A., Jonnalagadda, P., et al. Glaucoma Drainage Devices and Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery-Evolution of Designs and Materials. Designs. 2025;9(6):145. doi:10.3390/designs9060145.
https://doi.org/10.3390/designs9060145
13. Iacubitchii, M., Bendelic, E., Paduca, A., et al. In vivo Evaluation of PMMA Antiglaucoma Shunt's Biocompatibility. IFMBE Proc. 2024;92:431-442. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-42782-4_46.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42782-4_46
14. Dave, B., Patel, M., Suresh, S., et al. Wound Modulations in Glaucoma Surgery: A Systematic Review. Bioengineering. 2024;11(5):446. doi:10.3390/bioengineering11050446.
https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11050446
15. Balas, M., Mathew, D.J. Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery: A Review of the Literature. Vision. 2023;7(3):54. doi:10.3390/vision7030054.
https://doi.org/10.3390/vision7030054
16. Ang, B.C.H., Lim, S.Y., Betzler, B.K., et al. Recent Advancements in Glaucoma Surgery-A Review. Bioengineering. 2023;10(9):1096. doi:10.3390/bioengineering10091096.
https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10091096
17. Kumar, S., Thakur, S., Sharma, M. Ahmed glaucoma valve in refractory glaucoma: A retrospective study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2018;12(4):NC08-NC11. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2018/32447.11435.
https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2018/32447.11435
18. Molteno, A.C. New implant for drainage in glaucoma. Clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 1969;53(9):606-615. doi:10.1136/bjo.53.9.606.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.53.9.606
19. Dhawale, K.K., Tidake, P., et al. A Comprehensive Review of Recent Advances in Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery. Cureus. 2024;16(7). doi:10.7759/cureus.65236.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.65236
20. Barac, I.R. Chirurgia glaucomului - sisteme artificiale de drenaj. Romanian Journal of Medical Practice. 2012;7(1):39-42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-7073(12)70820-4
21. Barac, R.I., Harghel, V., Anton, N., et al. Initial Clinical Experience with Ahmed Valve in Romania: Five-Year Patient Follow-Up and Outcomes. Bioengineering. 2024;11(8). doi:10.3390/bioengineering11080820.
https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11080820
22. Massote, J.A., Oliveira, V.D.M.M., Cronemberger, S. Glaucoma drainage devices. Rev Bras Oftalmol. 2022;81:e0041. doi:10.37039/1982.8551.20220041.
https://doi.org/10.37039/1982.8551.20220041
23. Koentjoro, S.L., Artini, W., Soebijantoro, I., et al. Comparison of complications after Ahmed versus Baerveldt implant in glaucoma patients: one year follow-up. Int J Ophthalmol. 2020;13(12):1908-1914. doi:10.18240/ijo.2020.12.10.
https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2020.12.10
24. Christakis, P.G., Kalenak, J.W., Tsai, J.C., et al. The Ahmed Versus Baerveldt Study: Five-Year Treatment Outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(10):2093-2102. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.06.035.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.06.035
25. Tang, M., Gill, N., Tanna, A.P. Incidence and Outcomes of Hypertensive Phase After Glaucoma Drainage Device Surgery. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2024;7(4):345-351. doi:10.1016/j.ogla.2024.03.006.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogla.2024.03.006
26. Kostrubała-Żulewska, M., Żarnowski, T., Kosior-Jarecka, E. Hypotony Maculopathy. Ophthalmology/Okulistyka. 2025;28(3):30-34.
https://doi.org/10.5114/oku/215550
27. Budenz, D.L., Barton, K., Gedde, S.J., et al. Five-year treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt comparison study. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(2):308-316. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.08.043.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.08.043
28. Labay-Tejado, S., Ventura-Abreu, N., Porto-Castro, S., et al. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2024;38(4):368.
https://doi.org/10.4103/sjopt.sjopt_164_24
29. Carlà, M.M., Gambini, G., Boselli, F., Hu, L., et al. The Paul Glaucoma Implant: a systematic review of safety, efficacy, and emerging applications. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2025;263(9):2447. doi:10.1007/s00417-025-06861-2.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-025-06861-2
30. Nicolai, M., Franceschi, A., Pelliccioni, P., et al. EX-PRESS Glaucoma Filtration Device: Management of Complications. Vision. 2020;4(3):39. doi:10.3390/vision4030039.
https://doi.org/10.3390/vision4030039
31. Nicula, C., Nicula, D., Rednik, A., et al. Comparison of Ex-PRESS P-200 mini-shunt implantation and standard trabeculectomy for open-angle glaucoma: four-year follow-up. Arch Med Sci. 2023;19(4):1069-1079. doi:10.5114/aoms.2019.89971.
https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2019.89971
32. Ayoub, M., AlNahrawy, A. Microshunt Matchup: XEN vs. PRESERFLO in the Arena of Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma. Cureus. 2025;17(10). doi:10.7759/cureus.95252.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.95252
33. Chen, X.Z., Liang, Z.Q., Yang, K.Y., et al. The Outcomes of XEN Gel Stent Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Med. 2022;9:804847. doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.804847.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.804847
34. Jung, I.K., Lee, S.B., Kim, J.H., Park, C.K. Foreign Body Reaction in Glaucoma Drainage Implant Surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(6):3957-3964. doi:10.1167/iovs.12-11310.
https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.12-11310
35. Skuta, G.L., Parrish, R.K. Wound healing in glaucoma filtering surgery. Surv Ophthalmol. 1987;32(3):149-170. doi:10.1016/0039-6257(87)90091-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-6257(87)90091-9
36. Batlle, J. PRESERFLO MicroShunt Implantation in Patients with Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: 10-Year Results from a Single-Center Nonrandomized Study. Med Res Arch. 2025;13(7). doi:10.18103/mra.v13i7.6631.
https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v13i7.6631
37. Samuelson, T.W., Katz, L.J., et al. Randomized Evaluation of the Trabecular Micro-Bypass Stent with Phacoemulsification in Patients with Glaucoma and Cataract. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(3):459-467. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.07.007.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.07.007
38. Salimi, A., Watt, H., Harasymowycz, P. Long-term outcomes of two first-generation trabecular micro-bypass stents (iStent) with phacoemulsification in primary open-angle glaucoma: eight-year results. Eye Vis. 2021;8(1). doi:10.1186/s40662-021-00263-1.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-021-00263-1
39. Aghayeva, F.A., Assaf, A., Gurbanzade, S., Lanzl, I.M. Clinical outcomes of combined cataract surgery with iStent inject® W implantation versus cataract surgery alone in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2025;263(11):3191. doi:10.1007/s00417-025-06909-3.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-025-06909-3
40. Hamilton, N.R., Akhlaq, A., Nnoromele, P.O., et al. Clinical Outcomes of Hydrus Microstent Implantation for Open-Angle Glaucoma. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2026;9(1):48-61. doi:10.1016/j.ogla.2025.08.011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogla.2025.08.011
41. Ahmed, I.I.K., De Francesco, T., Rhee, D., et al. Long-term Outcomes from the HORIZON Randomized Trial for a Schlemm's Canal Microstent in Combination Cataract and Glaucoma Surgery. Ophthalmology. 2022;129(7):742-751. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.02.021.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.02.021
42. Fliney, G.D., Kim, E., Sarwana, M., et al. Kahook Dual Blade versus Trabectome (KVT): Comparing Outcomes in Combination with Cataract Surgery. Clin Ophthalmol. 2023;17:145. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S391527.
https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S391527
43. Obuchowska, I., Konopińska, J. Corneal Endothelial Cell Loss in Patients After Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery: Current Perspectives. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:1589-1600. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S359305.
https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S359305
44. Wong, O.M.M., Leung, C.K.S. Safety and efficacy of suprachoroidal stent implantation in patients with primary angle closure/primary angle closure glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58(8).
45. Dick, H.B., Mackert, M.J., Ahmed, I.I.K., et al. Two-Year Performance and Safety Results of the MINIject Supraciliary Implant in Patients With Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2024;260:172-181. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2023.12.006.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2023.12.006
46. Denis, P., Hirneiß, C., Durr, G.M., et al. Two-year outcomes of the MINIject drainage system for uncontrolled glaucoma from the STAR-I first-in-human trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2022;106(1):65-70. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316888.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316888
47. García-Feijoó, J., Denis, P., Hirneiß, C., et al. A European Study of the Performance and Safety of MINIject in Patients With Medically Uncontrolled Open-angle Glaucoma (STAR-II). J Glaucoma. 2020;29(10):864. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000001632.
https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001632
48. Bendelic, E., Alsaliem, S. Șunt antiglaucomatos cu supapă. Buletinul Oficial de Proprietate Intelectuală. 2021;1:62-63.
49. Bendelic, E. Raport anual privind implementarea proiectului din cadrul Programului de Stat (2020-2023) "Implementarea unei metode chirurgicale în tratamentul glaucomului cu implantarea şuntului cu supapă elaborat". Chișinău; 2020.
50. Iacubitchii, M., Paduca, A., Arnaut, O., Bendelic, E. Intraocular pressure control after implantation of experimental antiglaucoma shunt versus trabeculectomy. Rom J Ophthalmol. 2026;70(1):71-79. doi:10.22336/rjo.2026.10.
https://doi.org/10.22336/rjo.2026.10
51. Aghamollaei, H., Pirhadi, S., Shafiee, S., et al. Application of polymethylmethacrylate, acrylic, and silicone in ophthalmology. In: Materials for Biomedical Engineering. Elsevier; 2019. p. 507-554. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-816874-5.00015-3.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.



