AzTrials
AzTrials

GlaucomaNCT03166566

Laminar Drainage Implant: Safety of a Novel Surgical Treatment for Refractory Glaucoma.

A study testing Laminar drainage implant surgery. in people with Glaucoma and Blindness, Acquired, run by Federal University of Minas Gerais.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Purpose: To assess the feasibility of a surgical technique and present the preliminary safety results of a new glaucoma device devoid of a tube in painful blind eyes. Methods: Fifteen end-stage glaucomatous eyes without light perception vision were treated with a novel laminar drainage implant. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Glaucoma, Blindness, Acquired, End-Stage Glaucoma
What is being tested?
Laminar drainage implant surgery.
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
15 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
1 Mar 2011to 2 Sep 2016
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • patients aged 18 years or older with a painful blind eye refractory to clinical treatment and an intraocular pressure (IOP) ≥ 30 mmHg.

Who cannot join

  • eyes with extensive conjunctival scarring, a disorganized anterior segment, or retinal detachment identified by ophthalmoscopy or B-scan ultrasonography.

About this study

Purpose: To assess the feasibility of a surgical technique and present the preliminary safety results of a new glaucoma device devoid of a tube in painful blind eyes.

Methods: Fifteen end-stage glaucomatous eyes without light perception vision were treated with a novel laminar drainage implant. Intraocular pressure was measured preoperatively and up to 24 months after surgery using a Goldmann applanation tonometer. A scale ranging from 0 to 10 was used to evaluate ocular pain. Conjunctival hyperemia, discharge, erosion or retraction, aqueous humor leakage, corneal edema, hyphema, anterior chamber cells and depth, dislocation of the implant, and filtering bleb height were assessed by slit-lamp biomicroscopy. Anterior segment optical coherence tomography was also assessed.

Read the detailed description

Methods: Light perception was tested in the preoperative assessment. The following parameters were evaluated at the pre- and postoperative visits: morning Goldmann applanation tonometry; anterior segment biomicroscopy, gonioscopy, and eye pain intensity. Postoperative visits occurred on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years. The criteria for IOP reduction success were 15 mmHg and a 20% reduction compared to the baseline preoperative IOP. Biomicroscopy variables included the presence or absence of hyperemia, discharge, conjunctival erosion and retraction, aqueous humor leakage (Seidel test), corneal edema, hyphema, AC reaction and depth, and device dislocation. A shallow AC was considered a Spaeth classification grade of I or II and a flat AC was considered grade III. A filtering bleb height above the LDI profile was considered elevated; otherwise, it was classified as flat. Gonioscopy was performed preoperatively and postoperatively. Ocular pain intensity was assessed before and after surgery using a verbal Numerical Rating Scale ranging from zero to 10, with zero representing the absence of pain and 10 representing the worst eye pain ever felt before surgery.

Anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) (Visante®, Carl Zeiss Meditec®, Inc., Dublin, CA, USA) was performed postoperatively at the highest resolution (enhanced high-resolution corneal mode).

Reoperations to unblock the internal ostium were not considered failures; thereafter, the day of the second surgery was considered postoperative day 0.

LDI A human LDI was designed by one of the authors (S.J.) after a preclinical trial in rabbits with a similar device. It is a 150-µm-thick foil made of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), composed of three functional areas (Fig. 1): 1) the tip, which has a triangular shape and is inserted into the AC angle; 2) the intermediate portion, which has a rectangular shape (4.5 mm long × 4.0 mm wide) and is positioned inside a scleral tunnel; and 3) the posterior plate, which has a round shape (diameter = 12.5 mm) and is positioned between the sclera and conjunctiva. The LDI plate is positioned only 4.5 mm from the corneoscleral limbus and no allograft coverage is necessary. Its hypothetical mechanism of action is similar to those of popular GDIs and shunts the aqueous humor from the AC to the subconjunctival plate. The difference between their designs is the absence of a tube in the LDI. Thus, aqueous humor drainage is supposed to occur in the space between the inner walls of the scleral tunnel and LDI and/or thought is cleft.

LDI Surgery All surgeries were performed under local peribulbar anesthesia by the same surgeon (S.J.).

Statistical Analysis The sample size was calculated based on IOP standard deviation values from the first seven patients who were operated on (an internal pilot study) while considering 15 mmHg as the minimal clinically relevant difference to be detected.

Histogram inspection and Shapiro-Wilk tests were used to assess the assumption of the normality of variables. Wilcoxon's rank-sum test was used to compare the median pain intensity at each postoperative visit to that at the preoperative visit. Conjunctival hyperemia, AC cells, corneal edema, and hyphema variables were analyzed using McNemar's test. The comparison between the pre- and postoperative mean IOP was performed using Student's two-tailed paired t-test. Results were analyzed using SPSS® (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for Windows version 18.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) and the alpha level (type I error) was set at 0.05.

Being tested
Laminar drainage implant surgery.
Keywords
glaucoma, glaucoma surgery, glaucoma drainage device, glaucoma implant, blindness
Medical subject headings
Glaucoma, Blindness

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Laminar drainage implant surgery.Device

    A clear corneal traction suture was placed to achieve superior-temporal quadrant exposure, where a 90° conjunctival fornix-based flap was made, associated with two radial relaxing incisions. A half-thickness scleral tunnel (4.5 mm from the limbus and 4.0 mm wide) was made using a crescent blade and a superior-temporal iridectomy was performed through . Then, the tunnel end was shunted to the AC using a 1.5-mm-wide blade with a sharp tip. The LDI was inserted into the scleral tunnel so that its tip was positioned in the AC periphery and the implant was anchored to the sclera using 7-0 polypropylene thread with two separate sutures. Next, fistula function was assessed by the aqueous humor leakage test at the scleral tunnel entry site. Then, the conjunctiva was repositioned and running sutures were performed with 7-0 polyglactin for the relaxing incisions and mattress sutures were performed in the limbus using 10-0 nylon.

Study groups in NCT03166566
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
laminar drainage implant surgeryOtherpatients included and operated
Receives: Device: Laminar drainage implant surgery.

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Change for baseline of intra-ocular pressure (Goldmann applanation tonometry)

    The criteria for IOP reduction success were 15 mmHg and a 20% reduction compared to the baseline preoperative IOP.

    Measured: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.

Secondary outcomes (8)
  1. Ocular pain intensity ratting change from baseline

    Ocular pain intensity was assessed before and after surgery using a verbal Numerical scale.

    Measured: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.

  2. Conjunctival discharge presence/absence change from baseline

    conjunctival discharge was assessed by slit-lamp examination

    Measured: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.

  3. Conjunctival erosion or retraction appearence after surgery

    Presence or abscence of conjunctival tissue erosion or retraction, caused by the tested

    Measured: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.

  4. Corneal edema presence change from baseline

    assessed by slit-lamp biomicroscopy was classified as "present" or "abscent"

    Measured: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.

  5. Anterior chamber depth (gonioscopy) change from baseline

    A shallow AC was considered a Spaeth classification grade of I or II and a flat AC was considered grade III. A filtering bleb height above the LDI profile was considered elevated; otherwise, it was classified as flat

    Measured: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.

  6. Optic coherence tomography (OCT) assessment qualitative study after surgery

    OCT image were obtained in 8 patients after surgery in order to imaging study the implant and its relation with the eye structures.

    Measured: from 6 months to two years after surgery.

  7. Filtering bleg height variation from baseline

    bleb heigh(if not above implant profile)t was slit-lamp assessed. classified as "elevated" (above implant profile) or "flat"

    Measured: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.

  8. Conjunctival hyperemia change comparing to baseline

    conjunctival inflamation graduation assessed by slit-lamp examination ("present or abscent")

    Measured: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted25 May 2017
  2. Study start1 Mar 2011
  3. Primary completion2 Dec 2015
  4. Study completion2 Sep 2016

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Device feasibility
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
15 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03166566
Sponsor's protocol ID
CAAE 0194.0.203.203.09
Status last verified
May 2017
First submitted
22 May 2017
Last updated
25 May 2017
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Undecided

Publications

  • Wolf A, Hod Y, Buckman G, Stein N, Geyer O. Use of Autologous Scleral Graft in Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Surgery. J Glaucoma. 2016 Apr;25(4):365-70. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000232.

    PubMed 25719229
  • Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, Fainsinger R, Aass N, Kaasa S; European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC). Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011 Jun;41(6):1073-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016.

    PubMed 21621130
  • Christakis PG, Zhang D, Budenz DL, Barton K, Tsai JC, Ahmed IIK; ABC-AVB Study Groups. Five-Year Pooled Data Analysis of the Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study and the Ahmed Versus Baerveldt Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017 Apr;176:118-126. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.01.003. Epub 2017 Jan 17.

    PubMed 28104418
  • Thieme H, Choritz L, Schuart C, Wecke T. [Tube versus trabeculectomy study]. Ophthalmologe. 2013 Aug;110(8):728-32. doi: 10.1007/s00347-013-2840-z. German.

    PubMed 23873397
  • Aref AA, Gedde SJ, Budenz DL. Glaucoma Drainage Implant Surgery. Dev Ophthalmol. 2017;59:43-52. doi: 10.1159/000458485. Epub 2017 Apr 25.

    PubMed 28442686

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Laminar drainage implant surgery. in people with Glaucoma and Blindness, Acquired, run by Federal University of Minas Gerais.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 25 May 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Change for baseline of intra-ocular pressure (Goldmann applanation tonometry) (time frame: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03166566, which also lists 5 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 25 May 2017.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in