English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Glaucoma drainage devices (GDD) have become very popular in the surgical management of patients with glaucoma. One of the important steps in GDD surgery is the tube coverage, in order to avoid the occurrence of postoperative tube exposure which carries the risk of infectious endophthalmitis. Several patch graft materials or autologous scleral procedures have been proposed, of which the donor scleral graft, pericardial graft, and scleral flap are among the most frequently adopted. We aimed to provide a comprehensive review of the literature on this topic, with a focus on the material and characteristics, surgical technique, and advantages and disadvantages of each of these three common options. Both donor scleral grafts and scleral flaps provide a low and similar rate of postoperative tube exposure and low costs. The scleral flap procedure is readily available but may carry the risk of intraoperative complications and corneal issues related to scleral biomechanical changes. Pericardial grafts are associated with higher rates of graft thinning and tube exposure.

Donor scleral graft vs pericardial graft vs scleral flap in tube drainage covering: advantages and disadvantages