Fig 1.
Comparison of the surface nature of PMPC-uncoated Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) and PMPC-coated AGV.
The water contact angle was over 90° for the conventional AGV; therefore, the AGV originally had a hydrophobic surface. When the conventional AGV was coated with PMPC, the water contact angle decreased to below 90°, which implied that PMPC-coated AGVs have a hydrophilic surface.
Fig 2.
Methods for measuring the average inflammatory cell count.
(A) Hematoxylin and eosin staining of a microsection crossing the midline of the implant. The blue box indicates the surgical site. (B) 8× magnified image of the blue box in Fig A. The number of inflammatory cells in the tissue surrounding the implant was counted, following which the average number of cell counts of each group was calculated. (C) 200× magnified image of a red box marked in Fig B. Various inflammatory cells such as lymphocytes, foreign body giant cell, plasma cells are seen.
Fig 3.
Methods for measuring average fibrotic wall thickness.
(A) Masson’s trichrome staining of a microsection across the midline of the implant. The blue box indicates the surgical site. (B) 8× magnified image of the blue box in Fig A. Six parts of fibrotic capsule around the implant were selected. (C) 125× magnified image of a red box marked with the asterisk in Fig B. The fibrotic wall thickness was measured by averaging the length of the thinnest and thickest lines. The final mean data were collected by averaging the values corresponding to each of the six parts (six red boxes in Fig B).
Fig 4.
Comparison of gross conjunctival vascularity.
Quantification of overall conjunctival vascularity using the Indiana Bleb Appearance Grading Scale. There were no significant differences between the two groups at weeks 1, 2, and 4 after surgery (p = 0.715, 0.523, 0.598, respectively). Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation for each group. wPMPC, Ahmed glaucoma valve coated with PMPC; woPMPC, Ahmed glaucoma valve without PMPC-coating.
Fig 5.
Comparison of inflammatory response in tissues surrounding the implant area after Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation.
(A) 200× magnified images of H&E staining showed numerous inflammatory cells of each eye in the same rabbit. Scale bars: 100 μm. (B) The number of inflammatory cells around the PMPC-coated AGV was significantly smaller than that around the PMPC-uncoated AGV (p = 0.037). Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation for each group. wPMPC, Ahmed glaucoma valve coated with PMPC; woPMPC, Ahmed glaucoma valve without PMPC-coating.
Fig 6.
Comparison of overall thickness of the fibrotic wall.
(A) The main image shows 8× magnified image of the fibrotic wall region in the thumbnail image. The fibrotic capsule around the PMPC-coated implant is stained modest blue. (B) The fellow eye of the same rabbit with PMPC-uncoated implant. Scale bars: 3 mm. (C) In the wPMPC group, the average fibrotic wall thickness was significantly thinner than that in the woPMPC group (p = 0.025). Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation for each group. wPMPC, Ahmed glaucoma valve coated with PMPC; woPMPC, Ahmed glaucoma valve without PMPC-coating.