3.8 Article

Development of glaucoma after cataract surgery in dogs: 220 cases (1987-1998)

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 216, Issue 11, Pages 1780-1786

Publisher

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/javma.2000.216.1780

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective-To examine postoperative ocular hypertension (POH) and other variables as predictors of the risk of developing glaucoma after cataract surgery in dogs. Design-Retrospective study, Animals-220 dogs that had cataract surgery. Procedure-Medical records of 220 dogs (346 eyes) that had extracapsular cataract removal or phacoemulsification of cataracts were reviewed. With respect to glaucoma development, 8 variables were analyzed, which included development of POH, breed, sex, age at time of surgery, eye (right vs left), phacoemulsification time, intraocular lens (IOL) placement (yes or no), and stage of cataract development. Eyes developed glaucoma within 6 or 12 months of surgery or did nor have signs of glaucoma at least 6 or 12 months after cataract surgery. Results-Of 346 eyes, 58 (16.8%) developed glaucoma after surgery. At 6 months, 32 of 206 (15.5%) eyes examined had glaucoma; at 12 months, 44 of 153 (28.8%) eyes examined had glaucoma. Median follow-up lime was 5.8 months (range, 0.1 to 48 months). Mixed-breed dogs were at a significantly lower risk for glaucoma, compared with other breeds. Eyes with IOL placement were at a significantly lower risk for glaucoma, compared with eyes without IOL placement. Eyes with hypermature cataracts were at a significantly higher risk for glaucoma, compared with eyes with mature or immature cataracts. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Multiple factors appear to contribute to the onset of glaucoma in dogs after cataract surgery. Complications prohibiting IOL placement during cataract surgery may lead to a high risk of glaucoma development.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available