Evidence Hub

Outcomes of Susanna UF implants in refractory congenital glaucoma

Ruppert ADP, Ogata NG, Barbosa LEO, Stina PSN, Takatsu MV, Oltrogge EW, Hatanaka M

Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2025

31 participants

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the success and complication rates of the Susanna UF Glaucoma Drainage Device (SUFGDD) in treating refractory primary congenital glaucoma.

Patients and methods: In this prospective non-comparative clinical trial, patients with refractory primary congenital glaucoma, under 18-years-old, who had unsuccessful prior glaucoma surgeries, underwent standardized SUFGDD implant surgery. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon (A.D.P.R.). Pre and postoperative intraocular pressure (IOP), number of antiglaucoma eye drops, surgical complications, and any subsequent related events were recorded. Success criteria were defined as follows: (I) IOP ≥ 5 and ≤ 21 mmHg; (II) IOP ≥ 5 and ≤ 18 mmHg. Each group was further categorized as absolute success (without medication) or qualified success (including those with medication).

Results: The study included 45 eyes from 31 patients, with an average age of 6.14 ± 5.02 years (range: 9 months‒18 years). The mean follow-up time was 37.78 ± 10.44 months. Mean IOP decreased from 28.18 ± 5.69 mmHg to 14.73 ± 2.90 mmHg (p < 0.05). The average number of antiglaucoma medications was reduced from 2.96 ± 0.74 to 1.40 ± 1.23 (p < 0.05). At 36-months postoperatively, the qualified success rates for criteria I and II were 93.3 % and 77.8 %, respectively. Seven eyes (15.6 %) experienced complications, all of which required reoperation; six cases were successfully managed, while one case resulted in permanent…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 31 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free