4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Case series of angle-closure glaucoma after laser treatment for retinopathy of prematurity

期刊

JOURNAL OF AAPOS
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 17-21

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2004.10.007

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Laser photocoagulation is the current treatment standard for severe retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). Uncommon, but well recognized complications include cataract, and vitreous and retinal hemorrhage. Angleclosure glaucoma after laser photocoagulation for ROP is rare. The purpose of this study was to identify additional cases of angle-closure glaucoma following laser treatment for ROP. Methods: Five eyes of four patients with angle-closure glaucoma following laser treatment for ROP were identified by three ophthalmologists at separate institutions between 1997 and 2001. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from medical records. Clinical and surgical findings associated with the diagnosis and management of angle-closure glaucoma following ROP laser were evaluated. Results: The following data were collected (mean (range)): gestational age, 26.8 (24 to 29) weeks; birth weight, 833 (570 to 1062) g; age at laser treatment for ROP, 35 (33 to 37) weeks; number of laser burns, 1598 (930 to 2400); and time to diagnosis of angle-closure glaucoma, 3.6 (2 to 5) weeks. Three of five eyes had objective data for intraocular pressure (IOP) and corneal diameter with mean IOP 41 mm Hg (35 to 44) and mean corneal diameter 11.1 mm (10.25 to 11.5). Initial treatment included topical and systemic medications. Three eyes required surgical intervention. Angle-closure resolved in all cases with normalization of IOP. Follow-up (5 months to 3.6 years) showed that affected eyes tended to be more myopic than unaffected fellow eyes (mean spherical equivalent -6.5 vs -4.7 diopters). Conclusions: Angle-closure glaucoma can develop following laser treatment for severe ROP. Medical, and frequently surgical, intervention provides effective management.

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

4.1
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