Esat Yetkin1, Mehmet Ali Sekeroglu2, Muhammet Arif Ibis3, Osman Ozen4. 1. FICOpht, Midyat State Hospital, Mardin, Turkey. av3sta21@gmail.com. 2. Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, University of Health Sciences, Ulucanlar Eye Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 3. University of Health Sciences, Kecioren Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Ankara, Turkey. 4. University of Health Sciences, Ulucanlar Eye Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the static and dynamic pupillometric responses and anterior chamber parameters in overactive bladder (OAB) patients before and after solifenacin succinate treatment and to compare these results with those of healthy control subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty OAB patients who were planned to be treated with solifenacin succinate and 40 control subjects without any systemic or ocular diseases were included in the study. Following detailed ophthalmological examination, Pentacam imaging in order to detect anterior chamber angle, depth and volume; and static and dynamic pupillometry measurement in order to detect high-photopic (100 cd/m2), low-photopic (10 cd/m2), mesopic (1 cd/m2) and scotopic (0.1 cd/m2) pupil diameters, amplitude of pupil contraction, latency of pupil contraction, duration of pupil contraction, velocity of pupil contraction, latency of pupil dilation, duration of pupil dilation and velocity of pupil dilation were performed at baseline and at the first month of treatment. Data from the right eyes of the participants were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Baseline low- and high-photopic pupil diameters, duration of pupil contraction, latency of pupil dilatation and velocity of pupil dilatation values were significantly higher; and velocity of pupil contraction and duration of pupil dilation values were lower in the OAB group compared to the control group (P < 0.05 for all). One-month treatment with oral solifenacin succinate revealed higher scotopic and mesopic pupil diameters (P = 0.042, P = 0.031, respectively). Also, latency of pupil contraction was found to be increased and velocity of pupil dilatation was found to be decreased compared to pretreatment (P = 0.003, P < 0.001, respectively). We did not find any significant change in anterior chamber angle, depth and volume measured with Pentacam HR compared to pretreatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with OAB also have pupil abnormalities which probably reflect an underlying autonomic disorder that affects the bladder and pupils. One-month treatment of solifenacin succinate may lead to enlargement of pupil diameters under low illumination conditions and may lead to changes in dynamic pupillometric responses compatible with antimuscarinic treatment. Systemic antimuscarinic therapy has no effect on anterior chamber depth and intraocular pressure.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the static and dynamic pupillometric responses and anterior chamber parameters in overactive bladder (OAB) patients before and after solifenacin succinate treatment and to compare these results with those of healthy control subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty OAB patients who were planned to be treated with solifenacin succinate and 40 control subjects without any systemic or ocular diseases were included in the study. Following detailed ophthalmological examination, Pentacam imaging in order to detect anterior chamber angle, depth and volume; and static and dynamic pupillometry measurement in order to detect high-photopic (100 cd/m2), low-photopic (10 cd/m2), mesopic (1 cd/m2) and scotopic (0.1 cd/m2) pupil diameters, amplitude of pupil contraction, latency of pupil contraction, duration of pupil contraction, velocity of pupil contraction, latency of pupil dilation, duration of pupil dilation and velocity of pupil dilation were performed at baseline and at the first month of treatment. Data from the right eyes of the participants were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Baseline low- and high-photopic pupil diameters, duration of pupil contraction, latency of pupil dilatation and velocity of pupil dilatation values were significantly higher; and velocity of pupil contraction and duration of pupil dilation values were lower in the OAB group compared to the control group (P < 0.05 for all). One-month treatment with oral solifenacin succinate revealed higher scotopic and mesopic pupil diameters (P = 0.042, P = 0.031, respectively). Also, latency of pupil contraction was found to be increased and velocity of pupil dilatation was found to be decreased compared to pretreatment (P = 0.003, P < 0.001, respectively). We did not find any significant change in anterior chamber angle, depth and volume measured with Pentacam HR compared to pretreatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with OAB also have pupil abnormalities which probably reflect an underlying autonomic disorder that affects the bladder and pupils. One-month treatment of solifenacin succinate may lead to enlargement of pupil diameters under low illumination conditions and may lead to changes in dynamic pupillometric responses compatible with antimuscarinic treatment. Systemic antimuscarinic therapy has no effect on anterior chamber depth and intraocular pressure.