4.6 Article

Blindness and Long-Term Progression of Visual Field Defects in Chinese Patients With Primary Angle-Closure Glaucoma

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 152, 期 3, 页码 463-469

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.02.023

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, Singapore

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To investigate the long-term rates of blindness and visual field (VF) progression in treated primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) patients. DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. METHODS: PACG patients with >= 10 years of follow-up were analyzed. All VFs (static automated perimetry, central 24-2 threshold test) performed were reviewed and reliable VFs (fixation losses <20%, false positives and false negatives <33%) were scored using the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS) system. Progression of a VF defect was defined as a change of >= 4 from baseline on 2 consecutive VF tests. RESULTS: From the 137 eyes of 87 patients with PACG with >= 10 years of follow-up identified, 6% and 30.1% were blind based on initial visual acuity (VA) and VF criteria respectively and 12.0% had an initial AGIS score of 20; these were excluded. Eighty-three eyes from 57 patients (all Chinese, mean age 59.9 +/- 8.2 years, 67.5% female) were analyzed. The mean AGIS score was 5.14 +/- 4.37 at baseline. VF deterioration was detected in 27 eyes (32.5%) of 21 patients, with 4.8% and 7.2% of eyes progressing to blindness based on VA and VF criteria respectively. On Cox regression, eyes with VF progression had higher mean overall 1013 (P < .001), and higher prevalence of previous acute angle closure (AAC, P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Over 10 years, a third of PACG patients were found to have VF progression, with 7% progressing to blindness while on treatment. Eyes with higher mean overall IOP and a history of previous AAC were more likely to have VF progression. (Am J Ophthalmol 2011;152:463-469. (C) 2011 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据