Cargando…

Clinical Outcomes of Peripheral Iridotomy in Patients with the Spectrum of Chronic Primary Angle Closure

Purpose. To evaluate outcomes of peripheral iridotomy (PI) for initial management of primary angle closure suspects (PACS), chronic primary angle closure (CPAC), and chronic primary angle closure glaucoma (CPACG). Patients and Methods. Seventy-nine eyes with PACS, CPAC, or CPACG and better than 20/5...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cumba, Ricardo J., Nagi, Kundandeep S., Bell, Nicholas P., Blieden, Lauren S., Chuang, Alice Z., Mankiewicz, Kimberly A., Feldman, Robert M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3914230/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24558607
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/828972
_version_ 1782302366795563008
author Cumba, Ricardo J.
Nagi, Kundandeep S.
Bell, Nicholas P.
Blieden, Lauren S.
Chuang, Alice Z.
Mankiewicz, Kimberly A.
Feldman, Robert M.
author_facet Cumba, Ricardo J.
Nagi, Kundandeep S.
Bell, Nicholas P.
Blieden, Lauren S.
Chuang, Alice Z.
Mankiewicz, Kimberly A.
Feldman, Robert M.
author_sort Cumba, Ricardo J.
collection PubMed
description Purpose. To evaluate outcomes of peripheral iridotomy (PI) for initial management of primary angle closure suspects (PACS), chronic primary angle closure (CPAC), and chronic primary angle closure glaucoma (CPACG). Patients and Methods. Seventy-nine eyes with PACS, CPAC, or CPACG and better than 20/50 visual acuity that underwent PI as initial management were included. Eyes with previous acute angle closure attacks, laser trabeculoplasties, surgeries, or intraocular injections were excluded. Additional treatments, glaucomatous progression, intraocular pressure, visual acuity, and the number of medications were evaluated. Results. The mean followup was 57.1 ± 29.0 months (range 13.8–150.6 months). Sixty-eight eyes (86.1%) underwent additional medical, laser, or surgical treatment. Forty eyes (50.6%) underwent lens extraction due to reduced visual acuity. The mean 10× logMAR visual acuity score for all patients significantly declined from 0.94 ± 1.12 at baseline to 1.83 ± 3.49 (N = 79, P = 0.0261) at the last followup. Conclusions. Most patients who undergo PI for CPAC spectrum will require additional intervention for either IOP lowering or improvement of visual acuity. This suggests that a procedure that not only deepens the angle but also lowers IOP and improves visual acuity would be desirable as further intervention could be avoided. Evaluation of techniques that achieve all 3 goals is warranted.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3914230
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39142302014-02-20 Clinical Outcomes of Peripheral Iridotomy in Patients with the Spectrum of Chronic Primary Angle Closure Cumba, Ricardo J. Nagi, Kundandeep S. Bell, Nicholas P. Blieden, Lauren S. Chuang, Alice Z. Mankiewicz, Kimberly A. Feldman, Robert M. ISRN Ophthalmol Clinical Study Purpose. To evaluate outcomes of peripheral iridotomy (PI) for initial management of primary angle closure suspects (PACS), chronic primary angle closure (CPAC), and chronic primary angle closure glaucoma (CPACG). Patients and Methods. Seventy-nine eyes with PACS, CPAC, or CPACG and better than 20/50 visual acuity that underwent PI as initial management were included. Eyes with previous acute angle closure attacks, laser trabeculoplasties, surgeries, or intraocular injections were excluded. Additional treatments, glaucomatous progression, intraocular pressure, visual acuity, and the number of medications were evaluated. Results. The mean followup was 57.1 ± 29.0 months (range 13.8–150.6 months). Sixty-eight eyes (86.1%) underwent additional medical, laser, or surgical treatment. Forty eyes (50.6%) underwent lens extraction due to reduced visual acuity. The mean 10× logMAR visual acuity score for all patients significantly declined from 0.94 ± 1.12 at baseline to 1.83 ± 3.49 (N = 79, P = 0.0261) at the last followup. Conclusions. Most patients who undergo PI for CPAC spectrum will require additional intervention for either IOP lowering or improvement of visual acuity. This suggests that a procedure that not only deepens the angle but also lowers IOP and improves visual acuity would be desirable as further intervention could be avoided. Evaluation of techniques that achieve all 3 goals is warranted. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013-06-26 /pmc/articles/PMC3914230/ /pubmed/24558607 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/828972 Text en Copyright © 2013 Ricardo J. Cumba et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Cumba, Ricardo J.
Nagi, Kundandeep S.
Bell, Nicholas P.
Blieden, Lauren S.
Chuang, Alice Z.
Mankiewicz, Kimberly A.
Feldman, Robert M.
Clinical Outcomes of Peripheral Iridotomy in Patients with the Spectrum of Chronic Primary Angle Closure
title Clinical Outcomes of Peripheral Iridotomy in Patients with the Spectrum of Chronic Primary Angle Closure
title_full Clinical Outcomes of Peripheral Iridotomy in Patients with the Spectrum of Chronic Primary Angle Closure
title_fullStr Clinical Outcomes of Peripheral Iridotomy in Patients with the Spectrum of Chronic Primary Angle Closure
title_full_unstemmed Clinical Outcomes of Peripheral Iridotomy in Patients with the Spectrum of Chronic Primary Angle Closure
title_short Clinical Outcomes of Peripheral Iridotomy in Patients with the Spectrum of Chronic Primary Angle Closure
title_sort clinical outcomes of peripheral iridotomy in patients with the spectrum of chronic primary angle closure
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3914230/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24558607
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/828972
work_keys_str_mv AT cumbaricardoj clinicaloutcomesofperipheraliridotomyinpatientswiththespectrumofchronicprimaryangleclosure
AT nagikundandeeps clinicaloutcomesofperipheraliridotomyinpatientswiththespectrumofchronicprimaryangleclosure
AT bellnicholasp clinicaloutcomesofperipheraliridotomyinpatientswiththespectrumofchronicprimaryangleclosure
AT bliedenlaurens clinicaloutcomesofperipheraliridotomyinpatientswiththespectrumofchronicprimaryangleclosure
AT chuangalicez clinicaloutcomesofperipheraliridotomyinpatientswiththespectrumofchronicprimaryangleclosure
AT mankiewiczkimberlya clinicaloutcomesofperipheraliridotomyinpatientswiththespectrumofchronicprimaryangleclosure
AT feldmanrobertm clinicaloutcomesofperipheraliridotomyinpatientswiththespectrumofchronicprimaryangleclosure