Abstract:Background: Glaucoma affects more than 70 million people worldwide, with about 10% being bilaterally blind, making it the leading cause of irreversible blindness globally. In patients with advanced glaucoma or those who have failed medical treatment without achieving adequate intraocular pressure (IOP) control, trabeculectomy (glaucoma filtration surgery where an ostium is created into the anterior chamber from underneath a partial thickness scleral flap to allow for aqueous flow out of the anterior chamber intointo the subconjunctival space forming a filtering bleb) and aqueous shunt surgery for more complex and refractory cases remain the mainstay therapies. Proliferation of fibrous tissue around an implanted aqueous shunt may block the diffusion of aqueous humour. Mitomycin C (MMC) is one of two commonly used adjunct antifibrotic agents used during aqueous shunt surgery to prevent proliferation of fibrous tissue. However, the effectiveness and safety of the use of intraoperative MMC during aqueous shunt surgery has not been established. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of MMC versus no MMC used during aqueous shunt surgery for reducing IOP in primary and secondary glaucoma. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 13 February 2018. Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which one group of participants received MMC during aqueous shunt surgery and another group did not. We did not exclude studies based on outcomes. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts from the literature searches. We obtained full-text reports of potentially relevant studies and assessed them for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted data related to study characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Main results: We included five RCTs, with a total of 333 eyes with glaucoma randomized, and identified two ongoing trials. All included trials examined the effect of MMC versus no MMC when used during aqueous shunt surgery for glaucoma. The trials included participants with different types of uncontrolled glaucoma. One study was conducted in China, one in Saudi Arabia, two in the USA, and one study was a multicenter study conducted in Brazil, Canada, Scotland, and USA. We assessed all trials as having overall unclear risk of bias due to incomplete reporting of study methods and outcomes; two of the five trials were reported only as conference abstracts.None of the included trials reported mean decrease from baseline in IOP; however, all five trials reported mean IOP at 12 months post-surgery. At 12 months, the effect of MMC on mean IOP compared with no MMC was unclear based on a meta-analysis of trials (mean difference -0.12 mmHg, 95% CI -2.16 to 2.41; low-certainty evidence). Two trial did not report sufficient information to include in meta-analysis, but reported that mean IOP was lower in the MMC group compared with the no MMC group at 12 months.None of the included trials reported mean change from baseline in visual acuity; however, one trial reported lower mean LogMAR values (better vision) in the MMC group than in the no MMC group at 12 months post-surgery. None of the included studies reported the proportion of participants with stable best-corrected visual acuity. Three trials reported that loss of vision was not significantly different between groups (no data available for meta-analysis).None of the included studies reported the proportion of participants with a postoperative hypertensive phase, which is defined as IOP > 21 mmHg within 3 months after surgery. Two trials reported adverse events (choroidal effusion, corneal edema, flat anterior chamber, and retinal detachment); however, due to small numbers of events and sample sizes, no clear difference between MMC and placebo groups was observed. Authors' conclusions: We found insufficient evidence in this review to suggest MMC provides any postoperative benefit for glaucoma patients who undergo aqueous shunt surgery. Data across all five included trials were sparse and the reporting of study methods required to assess bias was inadequate. Future RCTs of this intervention should report methods in sufficient detail to permit assessment of potential bias and estimate target sample sizes based on clinically meaningful effect sizes.

Outcomes of a Second Ahmed Glaucoma Implant With Mitomycin-C in Pediatric Glaucoma After Initial Valve Failure

Ex-press glaucoma shunt with adjunctive amniotic membrane and mitomycin C for post-traumatic glaucoma

Comparison of the Ahmed and Baerveldt Glaucoma Drainage Implants in the Treatment of Primary Congenital Glaucoma

Outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation and risk factors for graft failure in eyes with Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty

Primary implantation of glaucoma drainage device in secondary glaucoma: Comparison of Aurolab aqueous drainage implant versus Ahmed glaucoma valve

One-Year Outcomes of the Paul Glaucoma Implant Compared to the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve for the Treatment of Silicone Oil Glaucoma

Ahmed valve implant and its place in the surgical treatment of glaucoma

One-Year Outcomes of the PAUL Glaucoma Implant Compared With the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve for the Treatment of Silicone Oil Glaucoma

Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation for neovascular glaucoma after vitrectomy for proliferative diabetic retinopathy

Outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve surgery performed by glaucoma fellows – A large retrospective study from Eastern India

Outcomes of reimplantation of a new Glaucoma Drainage Device after explantation of an older implant from exposure-related complications

Long-term results of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation with/without intravitreal anti-VEGF injection in neovascular glaucoma patients

The efficacy of adjunctive mitomycin C and/or anti-VEGF agents on glaucoma tube shunt drainage device surgeries: a systematic review

Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Implantation in Difficult Cases of Glaucoma – Technique and Complications

Meta-analysis of Molteno glaucoma implants and Ahmed glaucoma valves: insights into efficacy and safety for complex glaucoma

Outcomes of Trabeculectomy and Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Implantation in Patients with Iridocorneal Endothelial Syndrome

Success Rate of Augmented Trabeculectomy in Primary Congenital Glaucoma

Glaucoma valve devices for refractory glaucoma following vitrectomy

Paul Glaucoma Implant following Congenital Cataract Surgery in a Pediatric Cohort

A Long-Term Study with Stringent Success Criteria

Aqueous shunts with mitomycin C versus aqueous shunts alone for glaucoma