Display options
Cite
Guo JM, Li M, Xu XL, et al. Anterior segment changes after pharmacologic mydriasis using Pentacam and optical coherence tomography in angle closure suspects. Int J Ophthalmol. 2015;8(5):980-4doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.23.
Guo, J. M., Li, M., Xu, X. L., Zhang, H., & Wang, J. M. (2015). Anterior segment changes after pharmacologic mydriasis using Pentacam and optical coherence tomography in angle closure suspects. International journal of ophthalmology, 8(5), 980-4. https://doi.org/10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.23
Guo, Jing-Min, et al. "Anterior segment changes after pharmacologic mydriasis using Pentacam and optical coherence tomography in angle closure suspects." International journal of ophthalmology vol. 8,5 (2015): 980-4. doi: https://doi.org/10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.23
Guo JM, Li M, Xu XL, Zhang H, Wang JM. Anterior segment changes after pharmacologic mydriasis using Pentacam and optical coherence tomography in angle closure suspects. Int J Ophthalmol. 2015 Oct 18;8(5):980-4. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.23. eCollection 2015. PMID: 26558213; PMCID: PMC4630983.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Int J Ophthalmol. 2015 Oct 18;8(5):980-4. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.23. eCollection 2015.

Anterior segment changes after pharmacologic mydriasis using Pentacam and optical coherence tomography in angle closure suspects.

International journal of ophthalmology

Jing-Min Guo, Mu Li, Xiao-Lan Xu, Hong Zhang, Jun-Ming Wang

Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430000, Hubei Province, China.

PMID: 26558213 PMCID: PMC4630983 DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.23

Abstract

AIM: To compare the dynamic changes of anterior segment parameters especially iris morphology induced by pharmacologic mydriasis between angle closure suspects and normal controls.

METHODS: The study group comprised 19 eyes of 19 angle closure suspects and 19 eyes of 19 age- and sex-matched normal open-angle eyes. Pentacam and optical coherence tomography measurements before and 30min after instillation of compound tropicamide eye drop were performed and compared. Biometric evaluations of iris tomography and anterior chamber angle were estimated by a customized image-processing software.

RESULTS: Baseline axial length, iris cross sectional area and volume did not differ significantly between angle closure suspects and normal controls. Angle closure suspects had smaller pupil size, narrower anterior segment dimension and axial length, thinner iris with greater curve in comparison with normal controls. Pharmacologic mydriasis led to significant increments in iris thickness at 750 µm, anterior chamber depth and volume, whereas significant decrements in iris curve, cross sectional area and volume in both groups. Angle opening distance at 500 µm was increased significantly in normal controls (from 0.465±0.115 mm to 0.539±0.167 mm, P=0.009), but not in angle closure suspects (from 0.125±0.100 mm to 0.145±0.131 mm, P=0.326). Iris volume change per millimeter of pupil dilation (ΔIV/ΔPD) decreased significantly less in angle closure suspects than normal controls (-2.47±1.33 mm(2) vs -3.63±1.58 mm(2), P=0.019). Linear regression analysis showed that the change of angle opening distance at 500 µm was associated most with the change of central anterior chamber depth (β=0.841, P=0.002) and ΔIV/ΔPD (β=0.028, P=0.002), followed by gender (β=0.062, P=0.032).

CONCLUSION: Smaller iris volume decrement per millimeter of pupil dilation is related significantly with the less anterior angle opening in angle closure suspects after pharmacologic mydriasis. Dynamic iris change may be as a prospective indicator of iris compressibility and angle closure glaucoma.

Keywords: Pharmacologic mydriasis; anterior segment change; iris volume; primary angle closure suspects

References

  1. Ophthalmology. 2009 Mar;116(3):444-448.e2 - PubMed
  2. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993 Mar 15;115(3):338-46 - PubMed
  3. Optom Vis Sci. 2012 Apr;89(4):483-8 - PubMed
  4. Br J Ophthalmol. 1954 Apr;38(4):242-7 - PubMed
  5. Arch Ophthalmol. 1961 Sep;66:353-5 - PubMed
  6. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006 Mar;90(3):262-7 - PubMed
  7. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003 Apr;87(4):450-4 - PubMed
  8. Mol Vis. 2008;14:1886-92 - PubMed
  9. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 May 31;53(6):3139-44 - PubMed
  10. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010 Aug;51(8):4040-6 - PubMed
  11. Clin Auton Res. 2009 Apr;19(2):88-101 - PubMed
  12. Diabet Med. 2000 Oct;17(10):693-9 - PubMed
  13. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 1998 May;34(3):167-9 - PubMed
  14. Br J Ophthalmol. 1982 Jul;66(7):471-3 - PubMed
  15. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Jun 26;53(7):4005-10 - PubMed
  16. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007 Nov;91(11):1485-9 - PubMed
  17. Med Hypotheses. 2003 Mar;60(3):305-8 - PubMed
  18. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013 Jan 23;54(1):708-13 - PubMed
  19. Br J Ophthalmol. 1977 Aug;61(8):517-24 - PubMed
  20. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002 Feb;86(2):238-42 - PubMed
  21. J Glaucoma. 2008 Aug;17(5):386-92 - PubMed
  22. J Glaucoma. 2009 Mar;18(3):173-9 - PubMed
  23. Eye (Lond). 1989;3 ( Pt 3):288-93 - PubMed
  24. Ophthalmology. 2010 Jan;117(1):3-10 - PubMed
  25. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013 Oct;251(10):2395-402 - PubMed
  26. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Oct 01;53(11):6756-62 - PubMed

Publication Types