Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Che Hamzah J, Daka Q, Azuara-Blanco A
    Eye (Lond), 2020 01;34(1):155-160.
    PMID: 31772381 DOI: 10.1038/s41433-019-0669-7
    Glaucoma services are overwhelmed and struggling to accommodate current demand. Reducing the need for hospital based services would improve our ability to see those most at risk of vision loss, which could both reduce demand and improve patient outcomes. Digital technologies that provide opportunities for home monitoring of glaucoma progression have potential to contribute to solve these challenges and, potentially, improve glaucoma care. This article will review the literatures of well-established technologies that support home monitoring for glaucoma, specifically home tonometry (with rebound tonometry) and perimetry with Moorfields Motion Displacement Test and Melbourne Rapid Field.
  2. Day AC, Cooper D, Burr J, Foster PJ, Friedman DS, Gazzard G, et al.
    Br J Ophthalmol, 2018 12;102(12):1658-1662.
    PMID: 29453222 DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311447
    BACKGROUND: To describe the surgical technique and refractive outcomes following clear lens extraction (CLE) in the Effectiveness, in Angle-closure Glaucoma, of Lens Extraction trial.

    METHODS: Review of prospectively collected data from a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing CLE and laser peripheral iridotomy. Eligible participants were ≥50 years old and newly diagnosed with (1) primary angle closure (PAC) with intraocular pressure above 30 mm Hg or (2) PAC glaucoma. We report the postoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and refractive outcomes at 12 and 36 months postoperatively for those who underwent CLE.

    RESULTS: Of the 419 participants, 208 were randomised to CLE. Mean baseline CDVA was 77.9 (SD 12.4) letters and did not change significantly at 36 months when mean CDVA was 79.9 (SD 10.9) letters. Mean preoperative spherical equivalents were +1.7 (SD 2.3) and +0.08 (SD 0.95) diopters (D) at 36 months. Fifty-nine per cent and 85% eyes were within ±0.5D and ±1.0D of predicted refraction, respectively, at 36 months.

    CONCLUSIONS: Mean CDVA in patients undergoing CLE for angle-closure glaucoma appeared stable over the 3-year study period. Refractive error was significantly reduced with surgery but refractive predictability was suboptimal.

    TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:

  3. Chua PY, Day AC, Lai KL, Hall N, Tan LL, Khan K, et al.
    Br J Ophthalmol, 2018 Apr;102(4):539-543.
    PMID: 28794074 DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310725
    PURPOSE: To estimate the incidence, and describe the clinical features and short-term clinical outcomes of acute angle closure (AAC).

    METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed AAC were identified prospectively over a 12-month period (November 2011 to October 2012) by active surveillance through the Scottish Ophthalmic Surveillance Unit reporting system. Data were collected at case identification and at 6 months follow-up.

    RESULTS: There were 114 cases (108 patients) reported, giving an annual incidence of 2.2 cases (95% CI 1.8 to 2.6) or 2 patients (95% CI 1.7 to 2.4) per 1 00 000 in the whole population in Scotland. Precipitating factors were identified in 40% of cases. Almost one in five cases was associated with topical dilating drops. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at presentation ranged from 6/6 to perception of light. The mean presenting intraocular pressure (IOP) was 52 mm Hg (SD 11). Almost 30% cases had a delayed presentation of 3 or more days. At 6 months follow-up, 75% had BCVA of 6/12 or better and 30% were found to have glaucoma at follow-up. Delayed presentation (≥3 days) was associated with higher rate of glaucoma at follow-up (22.6% vs 60.8%, p<0.001), worse VA (0.34 vs 0.74 LogMAR, p<0.0001) and need for more topical medication (0.52 vs 1.2, p=0.003) to control IOP.

    CONCLUSION: The incidence of AAC in Scotland is relatively low compared with the Far East countries, but in line with previous European data. Almost one in five cases were associated with pupil dilation for retinal examination.

  4. Gopalakrishna G, Langendam M, Scholten R, Bossuyt P, Leeflang M, Noel-Storr A, et al.
    Diagn Progn Res, 2017;1:11.
    PMID: 31095132 DOI: 10.1186/s41512-017-0011-4
    [This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.].
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (tengcl@gmail.com)

External Links