Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 15;16(4):e0249898. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249898

Surgical outcomes after primary Baerveldt glaucoma implant surgery with vitrectomy for neovascular glaucoma

Koichi Nishitsuka 1,#, Akira Sugano 1,*,#, Takayuki Matsushita 1, Katsuhiro Nishi 1, Hidetoshi Yamashita 1
Editor: Ahmed Awadein2
PMCID: PMC8049227  PMID: 33857167

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the 3-year long-term outcomes of primary Baerveldt glaucoma implant (BGI) surgery for neovascular glaucoma (NVG). We retrospectively evaluated 27 consecutive patients with NVG between November 2013 and November 2017. All the patients were treated with panretinal photocoagulation and pars plana vitrectomy before BGI surgery without anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment. The surgical success of the BGI was defined as an IOP of <22 mmHg and <5 mmHg with or without antiglaucoma medication. The outcomes were assessed on the basis of intraocular pressure (IOP), visual acuity, postoperative complications, and cumulative success rate. Except for 2 mortality cases, 25 eyes (92.6%) were followed up for 3 years. The mean IOPs (mmHg)/numbers of glaucoma medications ± standard error of the mean before and 12 and 36 months after BGI surgery were 41.6/4.6 ± 1.9/0.2, 14.8/2.2 ± 0.8/0.4 and 16.9/2.6 ± 1.1/0.3, respectively. In all of the follow-up time points, the postoperative mean IOP and number of glaucoma medications were statistically significantly lower than the preoperative values (analysis of variance, P < 0.001). At 3 years after surgery, the rates of visual acuity improvement (logMAR ≤ −0.3), invariance (−0.3 < logMAR < 0.3), and worsening (logMAR ≥ 0.3) were 56.0% (14/25 eyes), 24.0% (6/25 eyes), and 20.0% (5/25 eyes), respectively. The most common postoperative complications were hyphema (4 eyes, 14.8%) and vitreous hemorrhage (5 eyes, 18.5%), and serious complications such as expulsive hemorrhage, endophthalmitis, and tube/plate exposure did not occur. The cumulative probabilities of surgical success after the operation were 100% at 1 year, 85.2% at 2 years, and 77.4% at 3 years. In conclusion, combined non-valved pars plana tube placement in conjunction with vitrectomy was successful at lowering IOP with relatively low complication rates.

Introduction

Neovascular glaucoma (NVG) is a serious disease that is generally resistant to surgical and drug treatments and ultimately leads to blindness [1]. As the high intraocular pressure (IOP) associated with NVG not only destroys the remaining visual function but also causes eye pain, reducing the IOP in addition to the treatment of the causative disease is important. The choice of surgical treatment for glaucoma has expanded in recent years, and tube shunt surgery, which is one of the treatments for intractable glaucoma, has the similar effect of lowering IOP as trabeculectomy in the Tube versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) Study [24].

Tube shunt surgery was generally positioned as a last-resort treatment when classic trabeculectomy treatment was unsuccessful, but in recent years, tube shunt surgery has been selected as an alternative to trabeculectomy [59]. The Primary Tube versus Trabeculectomy (PTVT) Study is a randomized clinical trial comparing trabeculectomy and initial tube shunt surgery in 242 glaucoma patients who had poor IOP control and had not undergone surgical treatment [10]. In addition, a meta-analysis showed that tube shunt surgery is effective for the treatment of NVG [11]. Although primary tube shunts may be effective against NVG, which is an intractable disease, so far, the primary tube has been used for NVG. In this study, we will report the 3-year treatment results of using the primary tube as the initial glaucoma treatment for NVG and performing Baerveldt glaucoma implant (BGI) surgery with vitrectomy.

Materials and methods

The institutional review committee of the Yamagata University Faculty of Medicine approved the study protocol (approval No. S-61). The study was performed in accordance with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent about the NVG was obtained from all patients. In this study, we investigated 27 eyes of 27 consecutive patients with NVG who underwent BGI surgery as the primary glaucoma surgery at Yamagata University Hospital between November 2013 and November 2017. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of the patients. Patients with a history of glaucoma surgery and no-light-perception vision at the onset of NVG were excluded from the study.

In all the cases, panretinal photocoagulation was first performed as much as possible before surgery. After that, vitreous surgery was performed to add retinal photocoagulation in the outermost part and, if necessary, to treat the underlying diseases such as with a proliferative membrane and bleeding control. After that, BGI surgery (BG 102–350; Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc., Santa Ana, CA, USA) was performed. In the BGI surgery, a 180° conjunctiva was incised to secure the extraocular muscle and BGI insertion space (Fig 1A). When creating the three 25-gauge ports, 1 port was matched to the BGI Hoffman elbow insertion site (Fig 1B). Peripheral vitreous shaving was performed sufficiently (Fig 1C) to avoid vitreoretinal complications. Before fixing the Baerveldt implant to the eyeball, tube ligation with 8–0 Vicryl was performed (Fig 1D). After removing the port, the incision was widened with a 20-gauge V lance (Fig 1E), and then a Hoffman elbow was inserted. The BGI was fixed to the eyeball with 8–0 nylon (Fig 1F), and a Sherwood slit was made with a needle (Fig 1G). The Hoffman elbow was patched with 8–0 nylon on a preserved sclera (Fig 1H). After confirming that no complications occurred, the remaining 2 ports were closed, and conjunctival sutures were performed.

Fig 1. Intraoperative finding of Baerveldt glaucoma implant surgery in this study.

Fig 1

a) Deployment of the surgical field with a 180° conjunctival incision. b) Trocar insertion in the Baerveldt implant fixation site. c) Peripheral vitreous shaving. d) Tube ligation with 8–0 Vicryl. e) A widening incision with a 20-gauge V lance. f) Fixation of the Baerveldt implant to the eyeball. g) Making a Sherwood slit. h) Patching the Hoffman elbow with a preserved sclera.

During the study period, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment had not been approved in the Japanese insurance system, so none of the patients receive anti-VEGF therapy as adjuvant therapy. One vitreoretinal surgeon (K.N.) and one glaucoma surgeon (A.S.) performed all the surgical procedures.

Data collection

The patient demographic data collected were as follows: age, sex, laterality of the eyes, IOP, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), number of glaucoma medications, underlying diagnosis of NVG, lens status, and history of ocular surgery. Moreover, informations on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, reoperation, and reasons for treatment failure were collected. We measured the IOP using a Goldmann applanation tonometer. We measured the IOP and number of medications preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months after the primary glaucoma tube shunt surgery. The total numbers of medications were as follows: single anti-glaucoma eye drops (1 medication; prostaglandin analogs, beta blockers, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, alpha agonists, Rho kinase inhibitors), combined anti-glaucoma eye drops (2 medications; beta blocker & carbonic anhydrase inhibitor and prostaglandin & beta blocker), and acetazolamide oral medicine (2 medications). The surgical success of the BGI was defined as an IOP of <22 mmHg and <5 mmHg with or without antiglaucoma medication.

For the BCVA measurement, we used a Japanese decimal visual acuity chart placed 5 m away from the patient. The decimal visual acuity was converted into Snellen visual acuity and logarithmic minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) to examine the visual acuity change. We compared the decimal visual acuity distribution and the amount of vision change between the preoperative, 1-year postoperative, and 3-year postoperative periods. An increase of ≥0.3 logMAR unit, a change of <0.3 logMAR unit, and a decrease of ≥0.3 logMAR unit in comparison with the preoperative value were defined as “worsenig,” “invariant,” and “improvement,” respectively.

Statistical analyses

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Fisher exact test were used for the statistical analyses. In all the analyses, P values < 0.01 were considered statistically significant. Surgical failure was determined using the Kaplan-Meier life-table analysis. The time to failure was defined as the time from treatment to reoperation for glaucoma, loss-of-light-perception vision, or the first of 2 consecutive study visits after 3 months when the patient showed persistent hypotony (IOP < 6 mmHg) or hypertension (IOP > 21 mmHg). All statistical data were analyzed using PASW Statistics 18 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

The baseline patient characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. Two patients accounting for 2 eyes died during the course, so only 25 eyes from 25 patients could be followed up for >3 years after a primary glaucoma surgery. The breakdown was 18 men and 9 women, with a mean age of 56.4 ± 14.3 years. The breakdown of the causative diseases of NVG was proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) with 16 eyes, ocular ischemic syndrome (OIS) with 8 eyes, and retinal vein occlusion (RVO) with 3 eyes. The preoperative mean IOP, mean BCVA, and mean number of medications ± standard deviation (SD) were 41.6 ± 9.9 mmHg, 1.4 ± 0.9, and 4.6 ± 1.0, respectively.

Table 1. Patients’ demographics.

Number of patients/eyes 27/27
Age (years), mean ± SD (range) 56.4 ± 14.3 (25–84)
Sex (female/male) 9/18
Laterality (right/left) 16/11
Underlying diagnosis of NVG, eyes PDR 16 (59.3%)
OIS 8 (29.6%)
RVO 3 (11.1%)
Preoperative IOP, mmHg, mean ± SD (range) 41.6 ± 9.9 (24–60)
Preoperative BCVA, LogMAR, mean ± SD (range) 1.4 ± 0.9 (0–3)
Number of glaucoma medications, mean ± SD (range) 4.6 ± 1.0 (3–6)
Lens status (phakia/pseudophakia) 13/14
History of ocular surgery Cataract surgery 14 (51.9%)
Vitrectomy 7 (25.9%)
PRP 17 (63.0%)

SD: standard deviation; NVG: neovascular glaucoma; PDR: proliferative diabetic retinopathy; OIS: ocular ischemic syndrome; RVO: retinal vein occlusion; BCVA: best-corrected visual acuity; logMAR: logarithmic minimum angle of resolution; PRP: panretinal photocoagulation

The baseline and follow-up IOPs are shown in Fig 2. The mean IOP ± standard error of the mean (SEM) during the preoperative and 12-, and 36-month postoperative periods after Baerveldt implant surgery were 41.6 ± 1.9, 14.8 ± 0.8, and 16.9 ± 1.1 mmHg, respectively. In all of the follow-up time points, the postoperative mean IOPs were statistically significantly lower than the preoperative mean IOPs (ANOVA, P < 0.001).

Fig 2. Postoperative intraocular pressure course after Baerveldt implant surgery.

Fig 2

The mean intraocular pressures (IOP) ± standard error of the mean (± SEM) during the preoperative and 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, 30-, and 36-month postoperative periods after Baerveldt implant surgery are shown. *P < 0.001, compared with the preoperative mean IOP based on the analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction. The number of eyes at each time point is shown in parentheses.

The numbers of glaucoma medications at baseline and follow-up are shown in Fig 3. The mean numbers of glaucoma medications ± SEM during the preoperative and 12-, and 36-month postoperative periods were 4.6 ± 0.2, 2.2 ± 0.4, and 2.6 ± 0.3, respectively. At all of the follow-up time points, the postoperative mean number of glaucoma medications was statistically significantly lower than the preoperative mean number of glaucoma medications (ANOVA, P < 0.001). In addition, in all the patients who were taking acetazolamide oral medication preoperatively, the therapy was discontinued after surgery.

Fig 3. Postoperative transition of the number of glaucoma medications.

Fig 3

The mean numbers of glaucoma medications ± standard error of the means (SEM) during the preoperative and 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, 30-, and 36-month after Baerveldt implant surgery are shown. *P < 0.001, compared with the preoperative mean number of glaucoma medications based on the analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction. The number of eyes at each time point is shown in parentheses.

Table 2 shows the distributions of the visual acuity improvement, invariance, and worsening at 1 and 3 years postoperatively. At 1 year after surgery, the rates of visual acuity improvement (logMAR ≤ −0.3), invariance (−0.3 < logMAR < 0.3), and worsening (logMAR ≥ 0.3) were 40.7% (11/27 eyes), 40.7% (11/27 eyes), and 18.5% (5/27 eyes). At 3 years after surgery, the rates were 56.0% (14/25 eyes), 24.0% (6/25 eyes), and 20.0% (5/25 eyes) were obtained, respectively.

Table 2. Distributions of visual acuity improvement, invariance, and deterioration at 1 and 3 years after surgery.

Improvement* Invariant** Worsen*** P value
1 year after surgery (n = 27) 11 (40.7%) 11 (40.7%) 5 (18.5%) 0.416
3 years after surgery (n = 25) 14 (56.0%) 6 (24.0%) 5 (20.0%)

*The postoperative BCVA improved by ≥0.3 LogMAR unit as compared with the preoperative BCVA.

**The postoperative BCVA changed within 0.3 LogMAR unit as compared with the preoperative BCVA.

***The postoperative BCVA worsened by ≥0.3 LogMAR unit as compared with the preoperative BCVA.

BCVA: best-corrected visual acuity; LogMAR: logarithmic minimum angle of resolution

The incidence rates of intraoperative complications, early postoperative complications (postoperative < 6 months), long-term complications (postoperative ≥ 6 months), and reoperation are described in Table 3. Intraoperative complications occurred during vitreous surgery performed a few days after prone air replacement in 1 patient who was undergoing retinal dialysis; BGI surgery was performed after the fundus lesions had resolved. No serious complications such as expulsive hemorrhage occurred. The most common postoperative complications in the early period were hyphema (4 eyes, 14.8%) and vitreous hemorrhage (5 eyes, 18.5%). The postoperative complications in the late period included noninfectious iritis in 4 eyes (14.8%), which all improved with steroid eye drops, and vitreous hemorrhage in 2 eyes (7.4%). Vitreous reoperation for vitreous hemorrhage was performed in 2 eyes. One case became a traction retinal detachment with low IOP after multiple vitreous surgeries for vitreous hemorrhage.

Table 3. Intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and reoperation.

No. of eyes (%)
Intraoperative complications Retinal dialysis 1 (3.1%)
Expulsive hemorrhage 0 (0%)
Early postoperative complications* Wound leak 0 (0%)
Hypotony 0 (0%)
Hyphema 4 (14.8%)
Endophthalmitis 0 (0%)
Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment 0 (0%)
Vitreous hemorrhage 5 (18.5%)
Late postoperative complications** Diplopia 0 (0%)
Hypotony 1 (3.7%)
Iritis 4 (14.8%)
Endophthalmitis 0 (0%)
Vitreous hemorrhage 2 (7.4%)
Traction retinal detachment 1(3.7%)
Plate and tube exposure 0 (0%)
Bullous keratopathy 0 (0%)
Reoperation Vitrectomy 2 (7.4%)
Glaucoma surgery 0 (0%)

*Complications < 6 month after surgery

**Complications ≥ 6 months after surgery

Fig 4 shows the Kaplan-Meier survival curves. The cumulative probability rate of surgical success after operation was 100% at 1 year, 85.2% at 2 years, and 77.4% at 3 years. The cause of surgical failure was ocular hypertension in 4 eyes (66.6%), low intraocular pressure in 1 eye (16.7%), and light-perception consumption in 1 eye (16.7%). Surgical failure occurred within 1 year after surgery in no eyes, at 2 years after surgery in 4 eyes, at 3 years after surgery in 2 eyes, and unknown owing to death.

Fig 4. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of surgical success.

Fig 4

Discussion

In this study, we report the treatment results in consecutive cases of NVG in which glaucoma tube shunt surgery (BGI) was chosen as the first-line glaucoma surgery. The mean preoperative IOP was 41.6 ± 1.9 mmHg, and the mean 1-month postoperative IOP was 16.3 ± 1.6 mmHg, showing a decrease in IOP in all the cases. Three years after the operation, 75.0% of the cases met the success criteria, and 56.0% of the cases showed improvement in visual acuity. Several studies that investigated the 3-year surgical outcomes of NVG treatment, including this study, are shown in Table 4. The success rates of BGI [12], Ahmed valve implant [13, 14], and trabeculectomy (TLE) [15, 16] at 3 years after surgery were 75.0%–78.1%, 20.6%–62.5%, and 82.8%–83.3%, respectively. The results were considered to vary depending on the treatment method and presence or absence of concomitant use of anti-VEGF treatment procedure [17]. In glaucoma tube shunt surgery, treatment outcomes may also be affected, especially in patients with or without a history of glaucoma surgery, including TLE. As far as we know, no reports have described a long-term course of 3 years with a high follow-up rate in consecutive cases of NVG in which BGI was selected as the primary tube shunt surgery. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of primary tube shunt surgery in NVG eyes.

Table 4. Surgical success of 3-year follow-up in neovascular glaucoma.

N Procedure Anti-VEGF 3-year follow-up (%) 3-year cumulative probability (%)
Present study 27 BGI - 92.6 77.4a
Tojo et al. [12] 35 BGI + 25.7 78.1a
Park et al. [13] 42 AI + 26.2 62.5a
Netland et al. [14] 38 AI - 18.4 20.6a
Kobayasahi et al. [15] 12 TLE + 100 83.3b
Higashide et al. [16] 61 TLE + 57.4 82.8a
Noor et al. [17] 9 Glaucoma Implant* + unknown 53.6a
Noor et al. [17] 30 Glaucoma Implant* - unknown 31.6a

BGI: Baerveldt glaucoma implant, TLE: Trabeculectomy, AI: Ahmed valve implant.

*Glaucoma implant, including the Baerveldt glaucoma, Ahmed valve, and Keiki Mehta implants

a Surgical success was defined as 22 mmHg> IOP >5 mmHg.

b Surgical success was defined as 22 mmHg> IOP.

In this study, we chose a vitreous cavity insertion-type BGI for NVG and adopted a strategy in which the retinal vitreous and glaucoma surgeons cooperated to perform the surgery. Primary tube surgery is easier to insert glaucoma implants than secondary tube surgery after TLE. The reason is that the conjunctiva is preserved in primary tube surgery. This point is considered to be an advantage of primary tube surgery. In addition, by combining with vitrectomy, retinal photocoagulation, including the peripheral retina for ischemic retina, and PDR treatment, including removal of bleeding and proliferative membranes, could be performed sufficiently.

The TVT study [2] reported the following complication rates: hyphema, 2%; vitreous hemorrhage, 1%; endophthalmitis, 1%; tube erosion, 5%; and retinal detachment, 1%. Meanwhile, the PTVT study [10] reported 6% and 1% incidence rates of hyphema and plate exposure, respectively. In addition, Anton et al [18] reported the following incidence rates: hyphema, 21%; vitreous hemorrhage, 16%; endophthalmitis, 3.4%; and retinal detachment, 4.5%, in BGI surgery with vitrectomy. In tube shunt surgery for NVG, the incidence rates of vitreous hemorrhage and hyphema seem high. In this study, the incidence rates of vitreous hemorrhage and hyphema were 18.8% and 18.8%, respectively (Table 3). On the other hand, no complications of endophthalmitis, retinal detachment, and plate/tube exposure were found in this study (Table 3). We believe that sharing treatment strategies in the fields of glaucoma and vitreoretina from the initial surgery is the factor of success. The absence of plate/tube exposure as a complication may have resulted from the adequate surgical field and use of preserved sclera for patching in all the cases.

The effectiveness of the adjuvant use of anti-VEGF has been reported in TLE for NVG [15, 16]. Zhou et al. reported that anti-VEGF is effective for the treatment success and prevention of bleeding complications in a meta-analysis [19]. On the other hand, Noor et al. reported no significant differences in the postoperative IOP, number of glaucoma medications, and success rate with or without the use of anti-VEGF in tube shunt surgery for NVG [17]. Anti-VEGF was not used in this study because it had not been approved during the study period. On the basis of previous reports, the use of anti-VEGF may reduce bleeding complications in BGI surgery, but further studies are needed on the final therapeutic effect.

The strategy of BGI surgery may also be important for long-term results. In this study, primary BGI surgery was chosen as the first glaucoma surgery for NVG, and the tubes were inserted in the pars plana in all the patients. Iwasaki et al. reported that the corneal endothelium decreased by 13.1% at 1 year after the operation in the case of BGI inserted in the anterior chamber [20]. On the other hand, no significant decrease in corneal endothelium was observed in the group in which BGI was inserted in the pars plana [20]. Koo et al. also reported that tubes closer to the cornea seemed to lead to increased loss of adjacent endothelial cells [21]. Zhang et al. compared more than 100 Ahmed valve implant cases of sulcus and anterior chamber tube placement and showed that tube location in anterior chamber were associated with faster central endothelial cell density loss [22]. As our treatment strategy, retinal vitreous and glaucoma specialists collaborated to perform vitrectomy and BGI surgery with pars plana insertion in all the cases. These treatments were considered good methods for avoiding the risk of corneal endothelium loss in addition to treating fundus diseases, including ischemic retina.

However, the present study has several limitations, including its retrospective design and lack of a control group. An additional period of follow-up is required to assess long-term prognosis, including tube exposure. Comparison with TLE, the types of glaucoma implants, glaucoma surgery history, and combination with anti-VEGF treatment should be further evaluated. As administration of anti-VEGF to NVG is currently permitted in Japan, a thorough examination of the administration protocol and investigation of its effectiveness in primary glaucoma implant surgery are necessary.

In summary, we evaluate the 3-year long-term outcomes of primary BGI surgery for NVG. Our results suggest that combined non-valved pars plana tube placement in conjunction with vitrectomy is successful at lowering IOP with relatively low complication rates. In the strategy of primary tube surgery combined with vitrectomy, collaboration between glaucoma and retina specialists may be important.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP25462704, JP20K18373.

References

  • 1.Yang H, Yu X, Sun X. Neovascular glaucoma: Handling in the future. Taiwan J Ophthalmol. 2018;8(2):60–6. Epub 2018/07/25. 10.4103/tjo.tjo_39_18 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL, et al. Three-year follow-up of the tube versus trabeculectomy study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148(5):670–84. Epub 2009/08/14. 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.06.018 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL, et al. Treatment outcomes in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study after five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(5):789–803 e2. Epub 2012/01/17. 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.10.026 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Saheb H, Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study G. Outcomes of glaucoma reoperations in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(6):1179–89 e2. Epub 2014/02/18. 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.02.027 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Arora KS, Robin AL, Corcoran KJ, Corcoran SL, Ramulu PY. Use of Various Glaucoma Surgeries and Procedures in Medicare Beneficiaries from 1994 to 2012. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(8):1615–24. Epub 2015/06/21. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.04.015 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Chen PP, Yamamoto T, Sawada A, Parrish RK 2nd, Kitazawa Y. Use of antifibrosis agents and glaucoma drainage devices in the American and Japanese Glaucoma Societies. J Glaucoma. 1997;6(3):192–6. Epub 1997/06/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Joshi AB, Parrish RK 2nd, Feuer WF. 2002 survey of the American Glaucoma Society: practice preferences for glaucoma surgery and antifibrotic use. J Glaucoma. 2005;14(2):172–4. Epub 2005/03/03. 10.1097/01.ijg.0000151684.12033.4d . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Desai MA, Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ, Shi W, Chen PP, Parrish RK 2nd. Practice preferences for glaucoma surgery: a survey of the american glaucoma society in 2008. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2011;42(3). Epub 2011/05/01. 10.3928/15428877-20110224-94 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Vinod K, Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ, Panarelli JF, Chang TC, Chen PP, et al. Practice Preferences for Glaucoma Surgery: A Survey of the American Glaucoma Society. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(8):687–93. Epub 2017/07/12. 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000720 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ, Lim KS, Barton K, Goyal S, Ahmed IIK, et al. Treatment Outcomes in the Primary Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study after 3 Years of Follow-up. Ophthalmology. 2020;127(3):333–45. Epub 2019/11/16. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.10.002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Dong Z, Gong J, Liao R, Xu S. Effectiveness of multiple therapeutic strategies in neovascular glaucoma patients: A PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(14):e9897. Epub 2018/04/06. 10.1097/MD.0000000000009897 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tojo N, Nakamura T, Ueda TC, Yanagisawa S, Hayashi A. Results of the Baerveldt(R) Glaucoma Implant for Neovascular Glaucoma Patients. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi. 2017;121(2):138–45. Epub 2017/02/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Park UC, Park KH, Kim DM, Yu HG. Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation for neovascular glaucoma after vitrectomy for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. J Glaucoma. 2011;20(7):433–8. Epub 2010/09/21. 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181f3eb06 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Netland PA, Ishida K, Boyle JW. The Ahmed Glaucoma Valve in patients with and without neovascular glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2010;19(9):581–6. Epub 2010/02/19. 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181ca7f7f . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kobayashi S, Inoue M, Yamane S, Sakamaki K, Arakawa A, Kadonosono K. Long-term Outcomes After Preoperative Intravitreal Injection of Bevacizumab Before Trabeculectomy for Neovascular Glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(3):281–4. Epub 2015/01/13. 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000211 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Higashide T, Ohkubo S, Sugiyama K. Long-Term Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Trabeculectomy following Intraocular Bevacizumab Injection for Neovascular Glaucoma. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0135766. Epub 2015/08/15. 10.1371/journal.pone.0135766 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Noor NA, Mustafa S, Artini W. Glaucoma drainage device implantation with adjunctive intravitreal bevacizumab in neovascular glaucoma: 3-year experience. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:1417–22. Epub 2017/08/30. 10.2147/OPTH.S137470 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kolomeyer AM, Seery CW, Emami-Naeimi P, Zarbin MA, Fechtner RD, Bhagat N. Combined pars plana vitrectomy and pars plana Baerveldt tube placement in eyes with neovascular glaucoma. Retina. 2015;35(1):17–28. Epub 2014/07/22. 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000235 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zhou M, Xu X, Zhang X, Sun X. Clinical Outcomes of Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Implantation With or Without Intravitreal Bevacizumab Pretreatment for Neovascular Glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(7):551–7. Epub 2015/02/27. 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000241 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Iwasaki K, Arimura S, Takihara Y, Takamura Y, Inatani M. Prospective cohort study of corneal endothelial cell loss after Baerveldt glaucoma implantation. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0201342. Epub 2018/07/27. 10.1371/journal.pone.0201342 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Koo EB, Hou J, Han Y, Keenan JD, Stamper RL, Jeng BH. Effect of glaucoma tube shunt parameters on cornea endothelial cells in patients with Ahmed valve implants. Cornea. 2015;34(1):37–41. Epub 2014/11/14. 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000301 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zhang Q, Liu Y, Thanapaisal S, Oatts J, Luo Y, Ying GS, et al. The Effect of Tube Location on Corneal Endothelial Cells in Patients with Ahmed Glaucoma Valve. Ophthalmology. 2021;128(2):218–26. Epub 2020/07/01. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.06.050 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ahmed Awadein

17 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-04967

Surgical outcomes after primary Baerveldt glaucoma implant surgery with vitrectomy for neovascular glaucoma

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nishitsuka,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

The manuscript needs careful English editing for grammar. There are some statistical bias by using both eyes of the same patient. In addition, there are some bias in the choice of papers for comparison with the outcome in the discussion section.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 01 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Awadein, MD, Ph.D, FRCS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: - In line 74 : Please correct "Rectus Femoris"

- The authors did not mention any use of anti-VEGF in the 3 years of follow up after surgery, it is better to mention the name of drugs used , doses and number

Reviewer #2: I read with interest Nishitsuka and colleagues' manuscript in which they retrospectively report on the outcomes of Baerveldt surgery in neovascular glaucoma. The article is interesting and I only have minor suggestions for improvement.

1) Including bilateral cases induces a statistical bias. Considering that both eyes were included for only 5 patients, I would recommend the authors exclude 5 of these eyes, retaining only the first operated eye.

2) For the sake of clarity, intraocular pressure and medications do not need to be provided in the abstract and the full text for every single timepoint: baseline, 12 months and 36 months will be enough. Readers can see other results in the figures.

3) If the authors decide to include the success rate in the abstract, they should also detail their definition of success in the abstract too.

4) The definition of success should be made more obvious in the full text.

5) The following sentence: "all the patients did not receive anti VEGF therapy" suggests that some patients received anti-VEGF. If this is not the case, the authors should clarify this ("none of the patients..." would make a clearer wording). If this is the case, they should report how many patients received anti-VEGF and provide a sub-analysis of their outcomes.

6) Lines 110-113: An increase in LogMAR should actually be considered a worsening of the visual acuity (and conversely).

7) In the discussion, if the authors elect to compare success rates between studies, they should make it clear in the text and the table that every study used in the comparison relied on the same success criteria as the present study. If this is not the case, the authors may still choose to report the success rates of these studies, but should discuss the impact of definition discrepencies. They may also consider reporting more comparable factors such as the percentages of intraocular pressure and medication reduction.

8) Occasional syntax errors may be addressed through careful proofreading.

Reviewer #3: This is was a retrospective, single-center, single surgeon pair case series aiming to describe outcomes in patients undergoing primary non-valved pars plana tube placement with concomitant vitrectomy in patients with neovascular glaucoma. This study is of some clinical interest as these surgeries are not frequently done at the same time and valved glaucoma tube shunts are perhaps more frequently used in patients with NVG.

Abstract: With regards to abstract, it would be helpful to define the success/failure criteria as it is only described later. I think too much space in the abstract is given to a breakdown of the complications, which could better be discussed later.

Introduction: The paper as a whole would benefit from proof-reading by a native English speaker. However, this does not detract from the underlying readability, except in a few instances (particularly at lines 104-106).

For my own clarification, lines 45-48 seem to suggest that the TVT study showed the same outcomes, when I would argue they were similar and there were differences between the tube and trabeculectomy groups.

Materials and Methods: It might be more statistically sound to only use 1 eye from any 1 patient. In this study there are several patients that have both eyes enrolled.

It would of course be up to the editor, but the lengthy description of the surgical technique may be better suited for an addendum as it does not add much to the paper.

Discussion: The success rates of the Baerveldt, Ahmed, and trabeculectomy are pulled from a few limited case series and I am concerned that there is the risk for bias. Success may be measured differently between these studies and the authors run the risk of subconsciously choosing studies that support their conclusion that the Baerveldt is highly successful.

While the authors acknowledge their reasons for not using anti-VEGF pre/post-operatively, the standard of care for NVG now almost always includes anti-VEGF. The conclusions of the study may be outdated because of this.

The study may benefit from more comparison of complication rates with other tube insertion techniques (like anterior chamber placement)

Lines 253-254 are difficult to understand

Lines 254-256: The reasoning for the lack of tube exposure after only 3 years may be of limited utility as tube exposure often happens even further out than 3 years

Only one small study is cited for the superiority of pars plana tubes in protecting corneal endothelium.

Overall, the conclusions drawn by the authors in this study suggest that combined non-valved pars plana tube placement in conjunction with vitrectomy is successful at lowering IOP with relatively low complication rates.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Mahmoud Rateb

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 15;16(4):e0249898. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249898.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Mar 2021

Reviewer #1:

- In line 74 : Please correct "Rectus Femoris"

Response: Thank you for your careful peer review. Accordingly, we have revised the manuscript as follow:

Page 5, Lines 74-75

In the BGI surgery, a 180°conjunctiva was incised to secure the extraocular muscle and BGI insertion space (Fig. 1A).

- The authors did not mention any use of anti-VEGF in the 3 years of follow up after surgery, it is better to mention the name of drugs used , doses and number

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have described the glaucoma medications used in this study in Methods as follows. And number of glaucoma medications were shown in Figure 3.

Page 7, Lines 105-109

The total numbers of medications were as follows: single anti-glaucoma eye drops (1 medication;prostaglandin analogs, beta blockers, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, alpha agonists, Rho kinase inhibitors), combined anti-glaucoma eye drops (2 medications; beta blocker & carbonic anhydrase inhibitor and prostaglandin & beta blocker), and acetazolamide oral medicine (2 medications).

Reviewer #2: I read with interest Nishitsuka and colleagues' manuscript in which they retrospectively report on the outcomes of Baerveldt surgery in neovascular glaucoma. The article is interesting and I only have minor suggestions for improvement.

Response: We wish to thank the reviewer for reviewing our study. We have revised manuscript according to REVIEWER 2.

1) Including bilateral cases induces a statistical bias. Considering that both eyes were included for only 5 patients, I would recommend the authors exclude 5 of these eyes, retaining only the first operated eye.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We received a similar point from Reviewer 3. Accordingly, we have exclude 5 eyes and revised the manuscript including Table 1-4 and Figure 2-3. The results do not change much.

2) For the sake of clarity, intraocular pressure and medications do not need to be provided in the abstract and the full text for every single timepoint: baseline, 12 months and 36 months will be enough. Readers can see other results in the figures.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Accordingly, we have revised the manuscript as follow:

Page 2, Limes 27-29 (Abstract)

The mean IOPs (mmHg)/numbers of glaucoma medications ± standard error of the mean before and 12 and 36 months after BGI surgery were 41.6/4.6 ± 1.9/0.2, 14.8/2.2 ± 0.8/0.4 and 16.9/2.6 ± 1.1/0.3, respectively.

Page 10, Lines 145-147 (Results)

The mean IOP ± standard error of the mean (SEM) during the preoperative and 12-, and 36-month postoperative periods after Baerveldt implant surgery were 41.6 ± 1.9, 14.8 ± 0.8, and 16.9 ± 1.1 mmHg, respectively.

Page 11, Lines 158-160 (Results)

The numbers of glaucoma medications at baseline and follow-up are shown in Fig 3. The mean numbers of glaucoma medications ± SEM during the preoperative and 12-, and 36-month postoperative periods were 4.6 ± 0.2, 2.2 ± 0.4, and 2.6 ± 0.3, respectively.

3) If the authors decide to include the success rate in the abstract, they should also detail their definition of success in the abstract too.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Accordingly, we have added the definition of success in Abstract as follow:

Page 2, Lines 23-24 (Abstract)

The surgical success of the BGI was defined as an IOP of <22 mmHg and <5 mmHg with or without antiglaucoma medication.

4) The definition of success should be made more obvious in the full text.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Accordingly, we have added the definition of success in Methods as follow:

Page 7, Lines 110-111 (Methods)

The surgical success of the BGI was defined as an IOP of <22 mmHg and <5 mmHg with or without antiglaucoma medication.

5) The following sentence: "all the patients did not receive anti VEGF therapy" suggests that some patients received anti-VEGF. If this is not the case, the authors should clarify this ("none of the patients..." would make a clearer wording). If this is the case, they should report how many patients received anti-VEGF and provide a sub-analysis of their outcomes.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. To clarify, we have revised the manuscript as follow:

Page 6, Lines 93-96

During the study period, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment had not been approved in the Japanese insurance system, so none of the patients receive anti-VEGF therapy as adjuvant therapy.

6) Lines 110-113: An increase in LogMAR should actually be considered a worsening of the visual acuity (and conversely).

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The reviewer's comment is correct. To clarify, we have revised the manuscript as follow:

Page 7, Line115 to Page 8, Line 119

We compared the decimal visual acuity distribution and the amount of vision change between the preoperative, 1-year postoperative, and 3-year postoperative periods. An increase of ≥0.3 logMAR unit, a change of <0.3 logMAR unit, and a decrease of ≥0.3 logMAR unit in comparison with the preoperative value were defined as “worsenig,” “invariant,” and “improvement,” respectively.

7) In the discussion, if the authors elect to compare success rates between studies, they should make it clear in the text and the table that every study used in the comparison relied on the same success criteria as the present study. If this is not the case, the authors may still choose to report the success rates of these studies, but should discuss the impact of definition discrepencies. They may also consider reporting more comparable factors such as the percentages of intraocular pressure and medication reduction.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The definition of surgical success in each study is given in footnotes.

Page 17, Lines 238-239

a Surgical success was defined as 22 mmHg> IOP >5 mmHg.

b surgical success was defined as 22 mmHg> IOP.

Moreover, the issues of comparative research by surgical technique are described in Limitation.

Page 19, Lines 283-289

However, the present study has several limitations, including its retrospective design and lack of a control group. An additional period of follow-up is required to assess long-term prognosis, including tube exposure. Comparison with TLE, the types of glaucoma implants, glaucoma surgery history, and combination with anti-VEGF treatment should be further evaluated. As administration of anti-VEGF to NVG is currently permitted in Japan, a thorough examination of the administration protocol and investigation of its effectiveness in primary glaucoma implant surgery are necessary.

8) Occasional syntax errors may be addressed through careful proofreading.

Response: We thank the reviewer for reviewing our study. This manuscript has been edited and rewritten by an experienced scientific editor, who has improved the grammar and stylistic expression of the paper.

Reviewer #3: This is was a retrospective, single-center, single surgeon pair case series aiming to describe outcomes in patients undergoing primary non-valved pars plana tube placement with concomitant vitrectomy in patients with neovascular glaucoma. This study is of some clinical interest as these surgeries are not frequently done at the same time and valved glaucoma tube shunts are perhaps more frequently used in patients with NVG.

Response: We wish to thank the reviewer for reviewing our study. We have revised manuscript according to REVIEWER 3.

Abstract: With regards to abstract, it would be helpful to define the success/failure criteria as it is only described later. I think too much space in the abstract is given to a breakdown of the complications, which could better be discussed later.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Accordingly, we have added the definition of success in Abstract as follow:

Page 2, Lines 23-24 (Abstract)

The surgical success of the BGI was defined as an IOP of <22 mmHg and <5 mmHg with or without antiglaucoma medication.

Introduction: The paper as a whole would benefit from proof-reading by a native English speaker. However, this does not detract from the underlying readability, except in a few instances (particularly at lines 104-106).

Response: We thank the reviewer for reviewing our study. This manuscript has been edited and rewritten by an experienced scientific editor, who has improved the grammar and stylistic expression of the paper. Also we have revised the pointed sentence as follow:

Page 7, Line 101-103

Moreover, informations on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, reoperation, and reasons for treatment failure were collected.

For my own clarification, lines 45-48 seem to suggest that the TVT study showed the same outcomes, when I would argue they were similar and there were differences between the tube and trabeculectomy groups.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The reviewer's comment is correct. We have revised the manuscript in Introduction as follows:

Page 4, Line 46-49 (Introduction)

The choice of surgical treatment for glaucoma has expanded in recent years, and tube shunt surgery, which is one of the treatments for intractable glaucoma, has the similar effect of lowering IOP as trabeculectomy in the Tube versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) Study [2-4].

Materials and Methods: It might be more statistically sound to only use 1 eye from any 1 patient. In this study there are several patients that have both eyes enrolled.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We received a similar point from Reviewer 3. Accordingly, we have exclude 5 eyes and revised the manuscript including Table 1-4 and Figure 2-3. The results do not change much.

It would of course be up to the editor, but the lengthy description of the surgical technique may be better suited for an addendum as it does not add much to the paper.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. There are various variations such as the thread used for BGI insertion and the presence or absence of a scleral patch, and we considered that it was important to describe the details of the surgical procedure. We would like to leave this point to the editor's judgment.

Discussion: The success rates of the Baerveldt, Ahmed, and trabeculectomy are pulled from a few limited case series and I am concerned that there is the risk for bias. Success may be measured differently between these studies and the authors run the risk of subconsciously choosing studies that support their conclusion that the Baerveldt is highly successful.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The definition of surgical success in each study is given in footnotes.

Page 17, Lines 238-239

a Surgical success was defined as 22 mmHg> IOP >5 mmHg.

b surgical success was defined as 22 mmHg> IOP.

Moreover, the issues of comparative research by surgical technique are described in Limitation.

Page 19, Lines 283-289

However, the present study has several limitations, including its retrospective design and lack of a control group. An additional period of follow-up is required to assess long-term prognosis, including tube exposure. Comparison with TLE, the types of glaucoma implants, glaucoma surgery history, and combination with anti-VEGF treatment should be further evaluated. As administration of anti-VEGF to NVG is currently permitted in Japan, a thorough examination of the administration protocol and investigation of its effectiveness in primary glaucoma implant surgery are necessary.

While the authors acknowledge their reasons for not using anti-VEGF pre/post-operatively, the standard of care for NVG now almost always includes anti-VEGF. The conclusions of the study may be outdated because of this.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have discussed the use of anti-VEGF in NVG in discussions as follows:

Page 19, Lines 262-269 (Discussions)

The effectiveness of the adjuvant use of anti-VEGF has been reported in TLE for NVG [15, 16]. Zhou et al. reported that anti-VEGF is effective for the treatment success and prevention of bleeding complications in a meta-analysis [19]. On the other hand, Noor et al. reported no significant differences in the postoperative IOP, number of glaucoma medications, and success rate with or without the use of anti-VEGF in tube shunt surgery for NVG [17]. Anti-VEGF was not used in this study because it had not been approved during the study period. On the basis of previous reports, the use of anti-VEGF may reduce bleeding complications in BGI surgery, but further studies are needed on the final therapeutic effect.

Based on current study, which showed the therapeutic results of Primary tube without anti-VEGF, we can expect the development of research on the therapeutic results of anti-VEGF combination in the future. We have discussed this point as follows:

Page 19, Lines 285-289 (Discussions)

Comparison with TLE, the types of glaucoma implants, glaucoma surgery history, and combination with anti-VEGF treatment should be further evaluated. As administration of anti-VEGF to NVG is currently permitted in Japan, a thorough examination of the administration protocol and investigation of its effectiveness in primary glaucoma implant surgery are necessary.

The study may benefit from more comparison of complication rates with other tube insertion techniques (like anterior chamber placement)

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have discussed the comparison of complication rates with other studies in discussions as follows:

Page 17, Line 249 to Page 18, Line 261

The TVT study [2] reported the following complication rates: hyphema, 2%; vitreous hemorrhage, 1%; endophthalmitis, 1%; tube erosion, 5%; and retinal detachment, 1%. Meanwhile, the PTVT study [10] reported 6% and 1% incidence rates of hyphema and plate exposure, respectively. In addition, Anton et al [18] reported the following incidence rates: hyphema, 21%; vitreous hemorrhage, 16%; endophthalmitis, 3.4%; and retinal detachment, 4.5%, in BGI surgery with vitrectomy. In tube shunt surgery for NVG, the incidence rates of vitreous hemorrhage and hyphema seem high. In this study, the incidence rates of vitreous hemorrhage and hyphema were 18.8% and 18.8%, respectively (Table 3). On the other hand, no complications of endophthalmitis, retinal detachment, and plate/tube exposure were found in this study (Table 3). We believe that sharing treatment strategies in the fields of glaucoma and vitreoretina from the initial surgery is the factor of success. The absence of plate/tube exposure as a complication may have resulted from the adequate surgical field and use of preserved sclera for patching in all the cases.

Lines 253-254 are difficult to understand

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have revised the pointed sentence as follow:

Page 17, Line 243-244

Primary tube surgery is easier to insert glaucoma implants than secondary tube surgery after TLE. The reason is that the conjunctiva is preserved in primary tube surgery. This point is considered to be an advantage of primary tube surgery.

Lines 254-256: The reasoning for the lack of tube exposure after only 3 years may be of limited utility as tube exposure often happens even further out than 3 years

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The reviewer's comment is correct. We have added the need for long-term observation in Discussions as follows:

Page 19, Lines 284-285 (Discussions)

An additional period of follow-up is required to assess long-term prognosis, including tube exposure.

Only one small study is cited for the superiority of pars plana tubes in protecting corneal endothelium.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have added literature showing that the anterior chamber insertion type is disadvantageous for the reduction of the corneal endothelium as follows:

Page 19, Lines 277-279

Zhang et al. compared more than 100 Ahmed valve implant cases of sulcus and anterior chamber tube placement and showed that tube location in anterior chamber were associated with faster central endothelial cell density loss[22].

Overall, the conclusions drawn by the authors in this study suggest that combined non-valved pars plana tube placement in conjunction with vitrectomy is successful at lowering IOP with relatively low complication rates.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have revised the conclusions in Abstract and Discussions as follows:

Page 3, Line 39-40 (Abstract)

In conclusion, combined non-valved pars plana tube placement in conjunction with vitrectomy was successful at lowering IOP with relatively low complication rates.

Page 19, Line 290 to page 20 Line 294 (Discussions)

In summary, we evaluate the 3-year long-term outcomes of primary BGI surgery for NVG. Our results suggest that combined non-valved pars plana tube placement in conjunction with vitrectomy is successful at lowering IOP with relatively low complication rates. In the strategy of primary tube surgery combined with vitrectomy, collaboration between glaucoma and retina specialists may be important.

Decision Letter 1

Ahmed Awadein

29 Mar 2021

Surgical outcomes after primary Baerveldt glaucoma implant surgery with vitrectomy for neovascular glaucoma

PONE-D-21-04967R1

Dear Dr. Nishitsuka,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Awadein, MD, Ph.D, FRCS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Ahmed Awadein

5 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-04967R1

Surgical outcomes after primary Baerveldt glaucoma implant surgery with vitrectomy for neovascular glaucoma

Dear Dr. Nishitsuka:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ahmed Awadein

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES