Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

A ten-year study of Baerveldt glaucoma drainage device in an Australian paediatric population

Abstract

Background

Childhood glaucoma is a rare condition that presents a significant management challenge often requiring surgical intervention. This study evaluates the epidemiology, efficacy and safety profile of Baerveldt glaucoma drainage devices (GDDs) in an Australian paediatric population over ten years.

Methods

A retrospective review of all patients under 18 years who underwent anterior chamber Baerveldt 101–350 implantation between January 2014 and January 2024 in an Australian tertiary referral centre was conducted. Patient characteristics, ocular examination and surgical details were collected. Survival rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

Results

Eighty-one Baerveldt GDDs were inserted in 80 eyes of 63 children at median 4.0 years. Prior glaucoma surgery was documented in 48.1% of cases. The most common indication was refractory glaucoma following cataract surgery (38.8%). A significant reduction in intraocular pressure (IOP) and medication requirement was observed at final follow-up (p < 0.001), with 36.3% of eyes requiring no glaucoma medications. The one-, five- and ten-year survival rates were 90.1%, 71.1% and 62.9% respectively. Twenty GDDs failed, predominantly due to elevated IOP. Complications occurred in 12.3% of cases with the most common being hypotony (4.9%) followed by tube retraction (3.7%).

Conclusion

Baerveldt 101–350 GDDs can provide effective long-term IOP control with a favourable safety profile. We noted a higher proportion of patients with glaucoma following cataract surgery in comparison to previous studies. Outcomes of this large single surgeon series compare favourably with existing literature and support the use of Baerveldt GDDs as a reliable option in childhood glaucoma refractory to other approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Weinreb RN, Grajewski AL, Papadopoulos M, Grigg J, Freedman S, editors. Childhood glaucoma. Amsterdam: Kugler Publications; 2013.

  2. Jacobson A, Besirli CG, Bohnsack BL. Outcomes of Baerveldt glaucoma drainage devices in pediatric eyes. J Glaucoma. 2022;31:468–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stallworth JY, O’Brien KS, Han Y, Oatts JT. Efficacy of Ahmed and Baerveldt glaucoma drainage device implantation in the pediatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surv Ophthalmol. 2023;68:578–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Elhusseiny AM, Hassan AK, Azhari JO, Elkheniny FD, Chauhan MZ, Chang TC, et al. Ahmed and Baerveldt glaucoma drainage devices in childhood glaucoma: a meta-analysis. J Glaucoma. 2023;32:686–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Christakis PG, Kalenak JW, Tsai JC, Zurakowski D, Kammer JA, Harasymowycz PJ, et al. The Ahmed versus Baerveldt study: five-year treatment outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:2093–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Aponte EP, Diehl N, Mohney BG. Incidence and clinical characteristics of childhood glaucoma: a population-based study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(Apr):478–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Thau A, Lloyd M, Freedman S, Beck A, Grajewski A, Levin AV. New classification system for pediatric glaucoma: implications for clinical care and a research registry. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2018;29:385–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shaarawy T, Grehn F. Guidelines on design and reporting of glaucoma surgical trials. Amsterdam: Kugler Publications; 2009.

  9. Chiang MY, Camuglia JE, Khaw PT. A novel method of extending glaucoma drainage tube: “tube-in-tube” technique. J Glaucoma. 2017;26:93–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Britt MT, LaBree LD, Lloyd MA, Minckler DS, Heuer DK, Baerveldt G, et al. Randomized clinical trial of the 350-mm2 versus the 500-mm2 Baerveldt implant: Longer term results: is bigger better?. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:2312–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. van Overdam KA, de Faber JT, Lemij HG, de Waard PW. Baerveldt glaucoma implant in paediatric patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:328–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

CYL was responsible for designing the study protocol, collecting data and writing the report. ASL and MC supervised the protocol design and provided feedback on the report.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cindy Yue-Ying Liu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, C.YY., Lee, A.S. & Chiang, M.YM. A ten-year study of Baerveldt glaucoma drainage device in an Australian paediatric population. Eye (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-025-04060-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-025-04060-1

Search

Quick links