4.3 Article

Erroneous assumption of ocular hypertension in patients with elevated intraocular pressure

Journal

INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 70, Issue 2, Pages 564-568

Publisher

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_938_21

Keywords

Elevated intraocular pressure; erroneous diagnosis; ocular hypertension; primary angle closure

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to determine the proportion of erroneously assumed ocular hypertension (OHT) among referred patients with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) in a glaucoma clinic in Northern India. The results showed a high proportion of patients who were misdiagnosed with OHT, emphasizing the importance of comprehensive clinical examination and appropriate investigations for accurate diagnosis.
Purpose: To determine the proportion of erroneously assumed ocular hypertension (OHT) among referred patients of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) seen in glaucoma clinic of a teaching hospital in Northern India. Methods: Retrospective review of case records of referred, diagnosed patients of OHT or unspecified glaucoma seen between January 2019 and March 2020. Using an algorithmic clinical approach, including gonioscopy, Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), and pachymetry, underlying cause for elevated-IOP was amended and proportion of erroneously assumed OHT was calculated. Results: Of 276 patients diagnosed either as OHT or unspecified glaucoma before being seen at our glaucoma clinic, 44 (16%) had IOP within normal range (10-21 mmHg) on GAT. In 97 (35%) cases elevated-IOP was associated with angle closure. The central corneal thickness (CCT) was >550 mu m in 39 (14%) patients with elevated-IOP. The proportion of erroneously assumed OHT was 70% in this study. Conclusion: The elevated-IOP does not imply with OHT unless evident through comprehensive clinical examination and appropriate investigations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available