Laser Peripheral Iridotomy with Iridoplasty in Primary Angle Closure Suspect: Anterior Chamber Analysis by Pentacam.
10.3341/kjo.2011.25.4.252
- Author:
Jong Rak LEE
1
;
Jin Young CHOI
;
Yeon Deok KIM
;
Jaewan CHOI
Author Information
1. HanGil Eye Hospital, Incheon, Korea. deskshot@naver.com
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Comparative Study ; Randomized Controlled Trial
- Keywords:
Laser peripheral iridoplasty;
Laser peripheral iridotomy;
Pentacam;
Primary angle closure suspect
- MeSH:
Adult;
Aged;
Anterior Chamber/*pathology/surgery;
Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological/*instrumentation;
Equipment Design;
Female;
Follow-Up Studies;
Glaucoma, Angle-Closure/pathology/physiopathology/*surgery;
Gonioscopy;
Humans;
Intraocular Pressure;
Iridectomy/*methods;
Iris/pathology/*surgery;
Laser Therapy/*methods;
Lasers, Solid-State;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Prospective Studies;
Tonometry, Ocular
- From:Korean Journal of Ophthalmology
2011;25(4):252-256
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To compare conventional laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) and LPI combined with laser peripheral iridoplasty in eyes with primary angle closure suspect (PACS) by assessment of anterior chamber dimensional changes using a Pentacam. METHODS: Forty-eight eyes of 24 subjects with bilateral PACS were recruited consecutively. Each eye was randomly allocated to treatment with conventional LPI, argon LPI only, or LPI plus iridoplasty, which consisted of simultaneous argon LPI and peripheral iridoplasty. Anterior chamber measurements were performed on each eye using a Pentacam, both before and after treatment. Mean anterior chamber depth (ACD), anterior chamber volume (ACV), and anterior chamber angle were measured, and topographic ACD analysis was performed. Results were compared between the two treatment groups. RESULTS: After treatment with either conventional LPI or LPI plus iridoplasty, the mean ACD and ACV increased significantly. Topographic ACD analysis revealed that the mid-to-peripheral ACD increase was significantly greater in the LPI plus iridoplasty group than in eyes treated with conventional LPI. Intraocular pressure changes and post-LPI complications did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conventional LPI, our study showed that LPI plus iridoplasty improved the mid-to-peripheral ACD increase. This procedure may have a role as an adjunct for reducing angle closure by simultaneously eliminating pupillary and non-pupillary block components.
