LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

Commentary: Intraluminal stenting of non-flow restrictive glaucoma drainage devices

Photo by usgs from unsplash

operating table by observing the dilution of fluorescein over the plate.[7] Sharkawi et al. described accessing subconjunctival Supramid ripcord post-op and partially withdrawing it by an amount titrated to the… Click to show full abstract

operating table by observing the dilution of fluorescein over the plate.[7] Sharkawi et al. described accessing subconjunctival Supramid ripcord post-op and partially withdrawing it by an amount titrated to the IOP of the patient.[8] In our experience, Supramid is more forgiving than nylon or prolene stents. Supramid swells to occupy the entire lumen but the material is porous, allowing aqueous to seep through it. In contrast, nylon and prolene stents are impermeable, forcing aqueous to flow around them. A short segment of nylon or prolene stent may impart little extra resistance to flow except for where the tube is compressed within the scleral tunnel, at which point the stent can plug the lumen entirely, like a cork in a bottle. For this reason, we believe Supramid is best suited to our technique as it usually does not completely obstruct flow.

Keywords: flow restrictive; non flow; nylon prolene; intraluminal stenting; stenting non; commentary intraluminal

Journal Title: Indian Journal of Ophthalmology
Year Published: 2020

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.