Daun Jeong1, Kyung Rim Sung1, Jung Hwa Na1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical characteristics of unilaterally progressing glaucoma (UPG) and simultaneously bilaterally progressing glaucoma (BPG) in medically treated cases. METHODS: Primary open angle glaucoma patients were classified as having UPG or BPG according to an assessment of optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer photographs and visual field analysis. Risk factors including the presence of systemic diseases (hypertension, diabetes, cerebrovascular accident, migraine, and dyslipidema) were compared between the UPG and BPG groups. Baseline characteristics and pre- and post-treatment intraocular pressure (IOP) were compared between the progressing eye (PE) and the non-progressing eye (NPE) within the same patient in the UPG group and between the faster progressing eye and the slower progressing eye in the BPG group. RESULTS: Among 343 patients (average follow-up period of 4.2 years), 43 were categorized into the UPG group and 31 into the BPG group. The prevalence of all analyzed systemic diseases did not differ between the two groups. PEs in the UPG group had more severe pathology in terms of baseline visual field parameters than NPEs (mean deviation -6.9 ± 5.7 vs. -2.9 ± 3.9 dB, respectively; p < 0.001). However, baseline IOP, mean follow-up IOP, and other clinical characteristics were not significantly different between the PE and the NPE in the UPG group. The progression rate was significantly higher in the faster progressing eye in patients with BPG than in the PE for patients with UPG (-3.43 ± 3.27 vs. -0.70 ± 1.26 dB/yr, respectively; p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the prevalence of systemic diseases between the UPG and BPG groups. Simultaneously bilaterally progressing patients showed much faster progression rates than those with a unilaterally progressing eye.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical characteristics of unilaterally progressing glaucoma (UPG) and simultaneously bilaterally progressing glaucoma (BPG) in medically treated cases. METHODS:Primary open angle glaucomapatients were classified as having UPG or BPG according to an assessment of optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer photographs and visual field analysis. Risk factors including the presence of systemic diseases (hypertension, diabetes, cerebrovascular accident, migraine, and dyslipidema) were compared between the UPG and BPG groups. Baseline characteristics and pre- and post-treatment intraocular pressure (IOP) were compared between the progressing eye (PE) and the non-progressing eye (NPE) within the same patient in the UPG group and between the faster progressing eye and the slower progressing eye in the BPG group. RESULTS: Among 343 patients (average follow-up period of 4.2 years), 43 were categorized into the UPG group and 31 into the BPG group. The prevalence of all analyzed systemic diseases did not differ between the two groups. PEs in the UPG group had more severe pathology in terms of baseline visual field parameters than NPEs (mean deviation -6.9 ± 5.7 vs. -2.9 ± 3.9 dB, respectively; p < 0.001). However, baseline IOP, mean follow-up IOP, and other clinical characteristics were not significantly different between the PE and the NPE in the UPG group. The progression rate was significantly higher in the faster progressing eye in patients with BPG than in the PE for patients with UPG (-3.43 ± 3.27 vs. -0.70 ± 1.26 dB/yr, respectively; p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the prevalence of systemic diseases between the UPG and BPG groups. Simultaneously bilaterally progressing patients showed much faster progression rates than those with a unilaterally progressing eye.
Authors: Michael A Kass; Dale K Heuer; Eve J Higginbotham; Chris A Johnson; John L Keltner; J Philip Miller; Richard K Parrish; M Roy Wilson; Mae O Gordon Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2002-06
Authors: Robert J Casson; Aanchal Gupta; Henry S Newland; Steve McGovern; James Muecke; Dinesh Selva; Than Aung Journal: Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Eduardo M Normando; Tim E Yap; John Maddison; Serge Miodragovic; Paolo Bonetti; Melanie Almonte; Nada G Mohammad; Sally Ameen; Laura Crawley; Faisal Ahmed; Philip A Bloom; Maria Francesca Cordeiro Journal: Expert Rev Mol Diagn Date: 2020-05-03 Impact factor: 5.225
Authors: Katrin Lorenz; Sabine Beck; Munir M Keilani; Joanna Wasielica-Poslednik; Norbert Pfeiffer; Franz H Grus Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.240