Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Tube-in-tube: A Solution for Retracted Tube

Surinder S Pandav, Natasha Gautam, Faisal Thattaruthody

Keywords : Glaucoma drainage device complication, Glaucoma drainage implants, Glaucoma drainage surgery, Intraocular pressure, Postoperative complications, Surgical technique, Tube extension, Tube retraction

Citation Information : Pandav SS, Gautam N, Thattaruthody F. Tube-in-tube: A Solution for Retracted Tube. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2021; 15 (1):44-46.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1292

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 21-07-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Tube retraction after Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implantation is an infrequent but known complication. The management option includes the use of a commercially available AGV tube extender, 22 G angiocatheter, resisting the existing glaucoma drainage device (GDD), or insertion of a new GDD. Each of the methods described in the literature has its limitations. We describe the successful management of this complication by using a cost-effective technique of connecting the silicone tube segment to the existing tube to lengthen the tube, so that it could be inserted in the anterior chamber again. The silicone tubes used for the technique were the extra length of the GDD tube, which was cut short and leftover during other GDD implantation surgeries. Clinical significance: During any GDD implantation, the tube is cut short before entering the anterior chamber. We retrieved the short segments of the tube immediately after the GDD was opened on the table and sterilized them again using plasma technology, available in our operating room. Hence, it provides a cost-effective alternative since the tube is usually trimmed to the desired length in all cases of GDD implantation (valved/non-valved), which can be subsequently sterilized and reused for lengthening the short tube in cases with tube retraction or inadvertently cut tube.

  1. Chadha N, Liu J, Teng CC. Resident and fellow glaucoma surgical experience following the tube versus trabeculectomy study. Ophthalmology 2015;122(9):1953–1954. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.03.009.
  2. Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, et al. Postoperative complications in the tube versus trabeculectomy (TVT) study during five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol 2012;153(5):804–814. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.10.024.
  3. Chiang MY, Camuglia JE, Khaw PT. A novel method of extending glaucoma drainage tube: “Tube-in-Tube” technique. J Glaucoma 2017;26(2):93–95. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000567.
  4. Billson F, Thomas R, Grigg J. Resiting molteno implant tubes. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers 1996;27(9):801–803. DOI: 10.3928/1542-8877-19960901-15.
  5. Sarkisian SR, Netland PA. Tube extender for revision of glaucoma drainage implants. J Glaucoma 2007;16(7):637–639. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3180640f6c.
  6. Godfrey DG, Krishna R, Greenfield DS, et al. Implantation of second glaucoma drainage devices after failure of primary devices. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers 2002;33(1):37–43. DOI: 10.3928/1542-8877-20020101-08.
  7. Bansal A, Fenerty CH. Extension of retracted glaucoma drainage tube using a 22-gauge intravenous catheter in complex pediatric glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2010;19(4):248–251. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181a98bc5.
  8. Sheets CW, Ramjattan TK, Smith MF, et al. Migration of glaucoma drainage device extender into anterior chamber after trauma. J Glaucoma 2006;15(6):559–561. DOI: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000212272.65477.7f.
  9. Abbott J, Bruynseels A, Osman L, et al. Letter in response to Chiang et al “a novel method of extending glaucoma drainage tube: ‘Tube-in-Tube’ technique”. J Glaucoma 2018;27(5):e101–e102. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000932.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.