Journal of glaucoma · 2014
Floppy eyelid syndrome as an indicator of the presence of glaucoma in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Muniesa MaJesús, Sánchez-de-la-Torre Manuel, Huerva Valentín, Lumbierres Marina, Barbé Ferran
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to investigate whether floppy eyelid syndrome (FES) could be an indicator of glaucoma in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 152 patients were included: 75 patients with OSA and without FES; 52 patients with OSA and FES; and 25 non-OSA patients. The presence of FES was defined by easy upper eyelid eversion and tarsal papillary conjunctivitis. All the patients underwent a complete ophthalmologic examination to diagnose glaucoma; this included computerized perimetry and retinal fiber layer measurements with optical coherence tomography.
RESULTS: The prevalence of glaucoma in OSA patients without FES was 5.33% (4/75). One patient had primary open-angle glaucoma and 3 had previously diagnosed glaucoma. The prevalence of glaucoma in OSA patients with FES was 23.07% (12/52). Six patients had normal-tension glaucoma, 5 had primary open-angle glaucoma and one patient had previously diagnosed glaucoma. None of the 25 patients without OSA had glaucoma. The difference in the prevalence of glaucoma between OSA patients without FES (5.3%) and OSA patients with FES (23.07%) was statistical significant (P=0.004). When adjustments were made for age and body mass index, this significance remained (P=0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that FES may offer a useful way to identify individuals with a greater probability of having glaucoma in the OSA population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 152 patients were included: 75 patients with OSA and without FES; 52 patients with OSA and FES; and 25 non-OSA patients. The presence of FES was defined by easy upper eyelid eversion and tarsal papillary conjunctivitis. All the patients underwent a complete ophthalmologic examination to diagnose glaucoma; this included computerized perimetry and retinal fiber layer measurements with optical coherence tomography.
RESULTS: The prevalence of glaucoma in OSA patients without FES was 5.33% (4/75). One patient had primary open-angle glaucoma and 3 had previously diagnosed glaucoma. The prevalence of glaucoma in OSA patients with FES was 23.07% (12/52). Six patients had normal-tension glaucoma, 5 had primary open-angle glaucoma and one patient had previously diagnosed glaucoma. None of the 25 patients without OSA had glaucoma. The difference in the prevalence of glaucoma between OSA patients without FES (5.3%) and OSA patients with FES (23.07%) was statistical significant (P=0.004). When adjustments were made for age and body mass index, this significance remained (P=0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that FES may offer a useful way to identify individuals with a greater probability of having glaucoma in the OSA population.