Charles W McMonnies1. 1. School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia. c.mcmonnies@unsw.edu.au
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review a range of activities associated with intraocular pressure (IOP) spikes. To examine the possible significance of IOP spikes in conditions such as keratectasia, axial myopia, and glaucoma. METHODS: Hypotheses concerning mechanisms for adverse responses to IOP spikes were examined. RESULTS: Apart from the possibility that IOP spikes might cause susceptible corneal, posterior scleral, or optic nerve head tissue to yield to associated distending forces, there is the possibility that these tissues will be also be damaged by increased hydrostatic pressure. CONCLUSIONS: In-office tonometry does not indicate the degree to which ocular tissues are exposed to IOP spikes. For eyes that are exposed to IOP spikes of longer duration, that occur frequently and which result in a larger IOP increment, the risk of an adverse response may be greater. Changes in ocular tissues because of increased hydrostatic pressure may include morphological cellular changes and alterations to enzyme function. Eye rubbing may be the most significant mechanism for creating IOP spikes because of the large IOP increments that may be involved, as well as the possibility that abnormal rubbing can become a chronic habit. As appears to be the case in keratoconus, asymmetric exposure to IOP spikes may help to explain some asymmetric presentations of post-laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis, glaucoma, or myopia. Ideally methods for the objective assessment of patient risk for adverse responses to IOP spikes will continue to be developed. A self-administered questionnaire may help identify patients who are significantly exposed to IOP spikes. Family history may indicate an increased risk of diseases for which IOP spikes may have significant implications. Patient counseling regarding the possibility that IOP spiking activities may contribute to the development and/or progression of conditions such as keratectasia, axial myopia, and glaucoma may be indicated.
PURPOSE: To review a range of activities associated with intraocular pressure (IOP) spikes. To examine the possible significance of IOP spikes in conditions such as keratectasia, axial myopia, and glaucoma. METHODS: Hypotheses concerning mechanisms for adverse responses to IOP spikes were examined. RESULTS: Apart from the possibility that IOP spikes might cause susceptible corneal, posterior scleral, or optic nerve head tissue to yield to associated distending forces, there is the possibility that these tissues will be also be damaged by increased hydrostatic pressure. CONCLUSIONS: In-office tonometry does not indicate the degree to which ocular tissues are exposed to IOP spikes. For eyes that are exposed to IOP spikes of longer duration, that occur frequently and which result in a larger IOP increment, the risk of an adverse response may be greater. Changes in ocular tissues because of increased hydrostatic pressure may include morphological cellular changes and alterations to enzyme function. Eye rubbing may be the most significant mechanism for creating IOP spikes because of the large IOP increments that may be involved, as well as the possibility that abnormal rubbing can become a chronic habit. As appears to be the case in keratoconus, asymmetric exposure to IOP spikes may help to explain some asymmetric presentations of post-laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis, glaucoma, or myopia. Ideally methods for the objective assessment of patient risk for adverse responses to IOP spikes will continue to be developed. A self-administered questionnaire may help identify patients who are significantly exposed to IOP spikes. Family history may indicate an increased risk of diseases for which IOP spikes may have significant implications. Patient counseling regarding the possibility that IOP spiking activities may contribute to the development and/or progression of conditions such as keratectasia, axial myopia, and glaucoma may be indicated.