Singapore medical journal · 2013
A prospective comparison of chronic primary angle-closure glaucoma versus primary open-angle glaucoma in Singapore.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ngo Cheryl S F, Aquino Maria Cecilia, Noor Shabana, Loon Seng Chee, Sng Chelvin C A, Gazzard Gus, Wong Wan-ling, Chew Paul T K
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: To describe the optic disc, visual field and ocular characteristics of a consecutive cohort of Asian patients with chronic primary angle-closure glaucoma (CPACG), and compare them with those having primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).
METHODS: In a prospective comparative case series of new patients with POAG or CPACG in Singapore, all patients underwent visual acuity assessment, slit-lamp examination, tonometry, gonioscopy, refraction, Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT) and Humphrey visual field (HVF) assessment.
RESULTS: 98 patients were enrolled (POAG n = 48; CPACG n = 50). CPACG patients were significantly older (66.5 ± 9.2 years vs. 64.1 ± 13.5 years; p = 0.027) and mostly female (p = 0.004). CPACG eyes had significantly higher intraocular pressure (26.9 ± 6.9 mmHg vs. 24.5 ± 3.3 mmHg; p = 0.03), shorter axial length (22.89 ± 0.97 mm vs. 24.26 ± 1.79 mm; p < 0.001) and shallower anterior chamber depth (2.60 ± 0.25 mm vs. 3.16 ± 0.48 mm; p < 0.001). HVF mean deviation or pattern standard deviation (PSD) did not differ significantly between POAG and CPACG eyes, but the latter had a lower PSD for a given mean deviation. HRT parameters between the two groups were not significantly different.
CONCLUSION: In this study, CPACG eyes had significantly higher presenting intraocular pressure than POAG eyes, but there were no significant differences in optic disc topography. A majority of the patients in both groups had moderate field defects at the time of presentation, followed by severe and then mild defects. The field loss in CPACG eyes was more diffuse than that in POAG eyes.
METHODS: In a prospective comparative case series of new patients with POAG or CPACG in Singapore, all patients underwent visual acuity assessment, slit-lamp examination, tonometry, gonioscopy, refraction, Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT) and Humphrey visual field (HVF) assessment.
RESULTS: 98 patients were enrolled (POAG n = 48; CPACG n = 50). CPACG patients were significantly older (66.5 ± 9.2 years vs. 64.1 ± 13.5 years; p = 0.027) and mostly female (p = 0.004). CPACG eyes had significantly higher intraocular pressure (26.9 ± 6.9 mmHg vs. 24.5 ± 3.3 mmHg; p = 0.03), shorter axial length (22.89 ± 0.97 mm vs. 24.26 ± 1.79 mm; p < 0.001) and shallower anterior chamber depth (2.60 ± 0.25 mm vs. 3.16 ± 0.48 mm; p < 0.001). HVF mean deviation or pattern standard deviation (PSD) did not differ significantly between POAG and CPACG eyes, but the latter had a lower PSD for a given mean deviation. HRT parameters between the two groups were not significantly different.
CONCLUSION: In this study, CPACG eyes had significantly higher presenting intraocular pressure than POAG eyes, but there were no significant differences in optic disc topography. A majority of the patients in both groups had moderate field defects at the time of presentation, followed by severe and then mild defects. The field loss in CPACG eyes was more diffuse than that in POAG eyes.