Displaying all 5 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Zahari M, Ong YM, Taharin R, Ramli N
    Optom Vis Sci, 2014 Apr;91(4):459-63.
    PMID: 24637481 DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000220
    To evaluate ocular biometric parameters and darkroom prone provocative test (DPPT) in family members of primary angle closure (PAC) glaucoma (PACG) patients and to establish any correlation between these biometric parameters and the DPPT response.
    Matched MeSH terms: Glaucoma, Angle-Closure/diagnosis*
  2. Loh CC, Kamaruddin H, Bastion MC, Husain R, Mohd Isa H, Md Din N
    Ophthalmic Res, 2021;64(2):246-252.
    PMID: 32810853 DOI: 10.1159/000510925
    INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to evaluate the refractive status and ocular biometric parameters in subjects with angle closure in Malaysia.

    METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 171 primary angle closure patients (268 eyes). Visual acuity, refraction, and ocular biometry (central anterior chamber depth [ACD], axial length [AL], and lens thickness) were recorded. Vitreous cavity length (VL) and relative lens position (RLP) were calculated.

    RESULTS: A total of 92 Primary Angle Closure Suspect (PACS), 30 Primary Angle Closure (PAC), and 146 Primary Angle Closure Glaucoma (PACG) eyes were included. Chinese ethnicity formed the majority (n = 197, 73.5%), followed by Malay (n = 57, 21.3%) and Indian (n = 14, 5.2%). There was a significant female preponderance with a female to male ratio of 1.85. Mean age was 65.7 ± 7.7 years. Mean spherical equivalent was +0.33 ± 1.29 D. Approximately half (n = 137, 51%) of the eyes were hyperopic (spherical power ≥+0.5), with PACG having the highest percentage of hyperopia (n = 69, 50.4%). Myopia and emmetropia were present in 48 (17.9) and 83 (31%) eyes, respectively. Although AL and VL in myopia patients were significantly longer than emmetropic and hyperopic eyes (p < 0.001), the ACD was not significantly different (p = 0.427). While the RLP is smaller in myopic eyes, lens thickness was increased in hyperopic eyes. PACG was significantly higher in elderly patients compared to PACS and PAC (p = 0.005). A total of 37 (13.8%) eyes were blind (vision worse than 3/60) and 19 of them (51.3%) were female patients.

    CONCLUSION: A decrease in RLP is predictive of angle closure disease in myopic eyes, whereas increased lens thickness contributes to angle closure disease in hyperopic eyes.

    Matched MeSH terms: Glaucoma, Angle-Closure/diagnosis
  3. Sharmini AT, Yin NY, Lee SS, Jackson AL, Stewart WC
    J Ocul Pharmacol Ther, 2009 Feb;25(1):71-5.
    PMID: 19232007 DOI: 10.1089/jop.2008.0061
    The aim of this study was to evaluate risk factors for progression in chronic angle-closure glaucoma (CACG) patients.
    Matched MeSH terms: Glaucoma, Angle-Closure/diagnosis
  4. Tan HK, Ahmad Tajuddin LS, Lee MY, Ismail S, Wan-Hitam WH
    PMID: 26065503 DOI: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000058
    PURPOSE: To determine the mean central corneal thickness (CCT) and the relationship between the CCT and visual field progression in primary angle closure (PAC) and primary angle closure glaucoma (PACG).

    DESIGN: A combined cross-sectional and prospective study on PAC and PACG.

    METHODS: A total of 35 eyes were included in the study for each group of normal control, PAC, and PACG patients from eye clinics in Kota Bharu, state of Kelantan, Malaysia, from January 2007 to November 2009. The PAC and PACG patients were divided into thin and thick CCT groups. They were followed up for 12 to 18 months for visual field progression assessment with their mean Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS) score.

    RESULTS: The CCT was 516.8 ± 26.0 µm for PAC and 509.7 ± 27.4 µm for PACG. Both were significantly thinner compared with the control group with CCT of 540 ± 27.8 µm (P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant increase in the mean AGIS score after 12.9 ± 1.7 months of follow-up in the thin CCT group for PACG (P = 0.002). However, no significant increase in the mean AGIS score was found for the thick CCT group in PACG and for both thin and thick CCT in PAC.

    CONCLUSIONS: The PAC and PACG had statistically significant thinner CCT compared with the controls. Thin CCT was associated with visual field progression based on the mean AGIS score in PACG.

    Matched MeSH terms: Glaucoma, Angle-Closure/diagnosis*
  5. Ramli NM, Sidek S, Rahman FA, Peyman M, Zahari M, Rahmat K, et al.
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2014 Jun;252(6):995-1000.
    PMID: 24770532 DOI: 10.1007/s00417-014-2622-6
    PURPOSE: To measure optic nerve (ON) volume using 3 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to correlate ON volume with retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness, and to determine the viability of MRI as an objective tool in distinguishing glaucoma severity.

    METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 30 severe glaucoma patients, 30 mild glaucoma patients and 30 age-matched controls were recruited. All subjects underwent standard automated perimetry, RNFL analysis and 3 T MRI examinations. Glaucoma patients were classified according to the Hodapp-Anderson-Parish classification. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to correlate ON volume with RNFL, and receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of ON volume in detecting glaucoma severity.

    RESULTS: Optic nerve volume was significantly lower in both the left and right eyes of the severe glaucoma group (168.70 ± 46.28 mm(3); 167.40 ± 45.36 mm(3)) than in the mild glaucoma group (264.03 ± 78.53 mm(3); 264.76 ± 78.88 mm(3)) and the control group (297.80 ± 71.45 mm(3); 296.56 ± 71.02 mm(3)). Moderate correlation was observed between: RNFL thickness and ON volume (r = 0.51, p <0.001), and in mean deviation of visual field and optic nerve volume (r = 0.60, p glaucoma.

    CONCLUSIONS: MRI measured optic nerve volume is a reliable method of assessing glaucomatous damage beyond the optic nerve head. A value of 236 mm(3) and below can be used to define severe glaucoma.

    Matched MeSH terms: Glaucoma, Angle-Closure/diagnosis*
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links