Devesh K Varma1, Sarah M Simpson2, Amandeep S Rai3, Iqbal Ike K Ahmed4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont; Prism Eye Institute, Mississauga, Ont; Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ont. Electronic address: devesh.varma@prismeye.ca. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Queens University, Kingston, Ont. 3. Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. 4. Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont; Prism Eye Institute, Mississauga, Ont; Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ont.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the proportion of patients referred to a tertiary glaucoma centre with a diagnosis of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) who were found to have angle closure glaucoma. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: Consecutive new patients referred for glaucoma management to a tertiary centre between July 2010 and December 2011 were reviewed. Patients whose referrals for glaucoma assessment specified angle status as "open" were included. The data collected included glaucoma specialist's angle assessment, diagnosis, and glaucoma severity. The status of those with 180 degrees or more Shaffer angle grading of 0 was classified as "closed." RESULTS: From 1234 glaucoma referrals, 179 cases were specified to have a diagnosis of OAG or when angles were known to be open. Of these, 16 (8.9%) were found on examination by the glaucoma specialist to have angle closure. Pseudoexfoliation was present in 4 of 16 patients (25%) in the missed angle-closure glaucoma (ACG) group and 22 of 108 patients (13.5%) in the remaining OAG group. There was no difference found in demographic or ocular biometric parameters between those with confirmed OAG versus those with missed ACG. CONCLUSIONS: Almost 1 in 11 patients referred by ophthalmologists to a tertiary glaucoma centre with a diagnosis of OAG were in fact found to have angle closure. Given the different treatment approaches for ACG versus OAG, this study suggests a need to strengthen angle evaluations.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the proportion of patients referred to a tertiary glaucoma centre with a diagnosis of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) who were found to have angle closure glaucoma. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: Consecutive new patients referred for glaucoma management to a tertiary centre between July 2010 and December 2011 were reviewed. Patients whose referrals for glaucoma assessment specified angle status as "open" were included. The data collected included glaucoma specialist's angle assessment, diagnosis, and glaucoma severity. The status of those with 180 degrees or more Shaffer angle grading of 0 was classified as "closed." RESULTS: From 1234 glaucoma referrals, 179 cases were specified to have a diagnosis of OAG or when angles were known to be open. Of these, 16 (8.9%) were found on examination by the glaucoma specialist to have angle closure. Pseudoexfoliation was present in 4 of 16 patients (25%) in the missed angle-closure glaucoma (ACG) group and 22 of 108 patients (13.5%) in the remaining OAG group. There was no difference found in demographic or ocular biometric parameters between those with confirmed OAG versus those with missed ACG. CONCLUSIONS: Almost 1 in 11 patients referred by ophthalmologists to a tertiary glaucoma centre with a diagnosis of OAG were in fact found to have angle closure. Given the different treatment approaches for ACG versus OAG, this study suggests a need to strengthen angle evaluations.
Authors: Benjamin Y Xu; Michael Chiang; Shreyasi Chaudhary; Shraddha Kulkarni; Anmol A Pardeshi; Rohit Varma Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Ivano Riva; Eleonora Micheletti; Francesco Oddone; Carlo Bruttini; Silvia Montescani; Giovanni De Angelis; Luigi Rovati; Robert N Weinreb; Luciano Quaranta Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Wioletta Rozpędek-Kamińska; Grzegorz Galita; Natalia Siwecka; Steven L Carroll; John Alan Diehl; Ewa Kucharska; Dariusz Pytel; Ireneusz Majsterek Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 5.923