Laser peripheral iridotomy in patients with acute primary angle closure

Svetlana Paunović; Milan Paunović; Sunčica Srećković; Nenad Petrović; Mihailo Jovanović; Dušan Todorović; Tatjana  Šarenac Vulović

doi:10.2298/VSP210320055P

Svetlana Paunović University Clinical Center Kragujevac, Clinic of Ophthalmology, Kragujevac, Serbia
Milan Paunović University Clinical Center Kragujevac, Pediatric Surgery Clinic, Kragujevac, Serbia
Sunčica Srećković University Clinical Center Kragujevac, Clinic of Ophthalmology, Kragujevac, Serbia
Nenad Petrović University Clinical Center Kragujevac, Clinic of Ophthalmology, Kragujevac, Serbia
Mihailo Jovanović University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Ophthalmology, Kragujevac, Serbia
Dušan Todorović University Clinical Center Kragujevac, Clinic of Ophthalmology, Kragujevac, Serbia
Tatjana Šarenac Vulović University Clinical Center Kragujevac, Clinic of Ophthalmology, Kragujevac, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP210320055P

Keywords: glaucoma, angle closure, laser therapy, ophthalmologic surgical procedures

Abstract

Background/Aim. Since glaucoma has a very high prevalence worldwide, it is important to examine additional treatment modalities, especially the prevention of its progression. The aim of the study was to determine the importance of laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) in patients with acute primary angle closure (APAC) in preventing primary angle closure glaucoma progression and APAC in the fellow eye. Methods. The research included 40 patients and 80 eyes treated between 2017 and 2021, which was also the follow-up period in the study. In all patients, LPI was performed bilaterally on both the APAC-affected eye and the healthy fellow eye. The patients with an age range from 40 to 79 years who had the pupillary block in one eye were monitored. All patients underwent bilateral LPI, and the changes in angle width were monitored using gonioscopy. Intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements were made with an applanation tonometer and Vertical Cup/Disc ratio (Ver C/D rat) performing biomicroscopic examination with indirect ophthalmoscopy and +90 D lens. Results. All 40 patients underwent bilateral LPI. The angle width of the APAC-affected eye before treatment was 0.15 ± 0.36, and 1.20 ± 0.41 of the fellow eye. After 12 months, the measurements taken were 0.85 ± 0.36 for the affected eye and 1.90 ± 0.36 for the fellow eye (Wilcoxon rank test, p < 0.01 statistically significant difference). The mean value of IOP in the eye without progression of the disease before therapy was 53.6 ± 3.73 mmHg, while in the eye with progression, it was 60.10 ± 4.37 mmHg. After 12 months, it was 14.92 ± 1.22 mmHg in the eye without progression, while in the eye with disease progression, it was 23.40 ± 2.53 mmHg (independent samples t-test, p < 0.01). The change in the Ver C/D rat in the eye without progression was 0.40 ± 0.10, while in the eye with progression, it was 0.45 ± 0.05. After 12 months, it remained unchanged in the eye without progression, while in the eye with progression, it was 0.65 ± 0.06 (independent samples t-test, p < 0.01). Conclusion. Simultaneous LPI has been proven efficient in patients with APAC in both affected and fellow eyes.

References

1. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90(3): 262‒7.

2. Ohnell H, Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Making a correct diagnosis of glaucoma: Data from EMGT. J Glaucoma 2019; 28(10): 859‒64.

3. Foster PJ, Johnson GJ. Glaucoma in China: how big is the problem? Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85(11): 1277‒82.

4. Foster PJ, Aung T, Nolan WP, Machin D, Baasanhu J, Khaw PT, et al. Defining "occludable" angles in population surveys: drainage angle width, peripheral anterior synechiae, and glaucomatous optic neuropathy in east Asian people. Br J Ophthalmol 2004; 88(4): 486‒90.

5. Seah SK, Foster PJ, Chew PT, Jap A, Oen F, Fam HB, et al. Incidence of acute primary angle-closure glaucoma in Singapore. An island-wide survey. Arch Ophthalmol 1997; 115(11): 1436‒40.

6. Wang W, Song H, Liu Z. Computational Study on the Biomechanics of Pupil Block Phenomenon. Biomed Res Int 2019; 2019: 4820167.

7. Gupta R, Kumar R, Chauhan L. Anterior chamber morphology changes in eyes with narrow angles by Scheimpflug imaging: pilocarpine versus laser peripheral iridotomy. Int Ophthalmol 2021; 41(6): 2099–108.

8. Lachkar Y, Bouassida W. Drug-induced acute angle closure glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2007; 18(2): 129‒33.

9. Singh P, Rijal AP. Effectivity of Nd Yag PI in treatment of acute primary angle closure glaucoma. Nepal Med Coll J 2014; 16(1): 45‒9.

10. Liao C, Zhang J, Jiang Y, Huang S, Aung T, Foster PJ, et al. Long-term effect of YAG laser iridotomy on corneal endothelium in primary angle closure suspects: a 72-month randomised controlled study. Br J Ophthalmol 2021; 105(3): 348–53.

11. Ahmadi M, Naderi Beni Z, Naderi Beni A, Kianersi F. Efficacy of neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser iridotomies in primary angle-closure diseases: superior peripheral iridotomy versus inferior peripheral iridotomy. Curr Med Res Opin 2017; 33(4): 687–92.

12. Yan C, Han Y, Yu Y, Wang W, Lyu D, Tang Y, et al. Effects of lens extraction versus laser peripheral iridotomy on anterior segment morphology in primary angle closure suspect. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2019; 257(7): 1473–80.

13. Kumar H, Mansoori T, Warjri GB, Somarajan BI, Bandil S, Gupta V. Lasers in glaucoma. Indian J Ophthalmol 2018; 66(11): 1539–53.

14. Moghimi S, Bijani F, Chen R, Yasseri M, He MG, Lin SC, et al. Anterior segment dimensions following laser iridotomy in acute primary angle closure and fellow eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 2018; 186: 59–68.

15. Park HS, Kim JM, Shim SH, Kim HT, Bae JH, Choi CY, et al. Diurnal intraocular pressure changes in eyes affected with acute primary angle closure and fellow eyes after laser peripheral iridotomy. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2015; 59(5): 318–24.

16. Waisbourd M, Shafa A, Delvadia R, Sembhi H, Molineaux J, Henderer J, et al. Bilateral Same-day Laser Peripheral Iridotomy in the Philadelphia Glaucoma Detection and Treatment Project. J Glaucoma 2016; 25(10): e821‒5.

17. Lim LS, Aung T, Husain R, Wu YJ, Gazzard G, Seah SK. Acute primary angle closure: configuration of the drainage angle in the first year after laser peripheral iridotomy. Ophthalmology 2004; 111(8): 1470‒4.

18. Moghimi S, Chen R, Johari M, Bijani F, Mohammadi M, Khodabandeh A, et al. Changes in Anterior Segment Morphology After Laser Peripheral Iridotomy in Acute Primary Angle Closure. Am J Ophthalmol 2016; 166: 133‒40.

19. Rao A, Rao HL, Kumar AU, Babu JG, Madhulata U, Arthi J, et al. Outcomes of laser peripheral iridotomy in angle closure disease. Semin Ophthalmol 2013; 28(1): 4‒8.

20. Pandav SS, Kaushik S, Jain R, Bansal R, Gupta A. Laser peripheral iridotomy across the spectrum of primary angle closure. Can J Ophthalmol 2007; 42(2): 233‒7.

21. Gupta B, Angmo D, Yadav S, Dada T, Gupta V, Sihota R. Quantification of Iridotrabecular contact in primary angle-closure disease. J Glaucoma 2020; 29(8): 681–8.

22. Pearce FC, Thomas R, Wong NJ, Walland MJ. Long-term progression after laser peripheral iridotomy in Caucasian primary angle closure suspects. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2018; 46(7): 828–30.

23. Radhakrishnan S, Chen PP, Junk AK, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Chen TC. Laser peripheral iridotomy in primary angle closure: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2018; 125(7): 1110–20.

24. Day AC, Cooper D, Burr J, Foster PJ, Friedman DS, Gazzard G, et al. Clear lens extraction for the management of primary angle closure glaucoma: surgical technique and refractive outcomes in the EAGLE cohort. Br J Ophthalmol 2018; 102(12): 1658‒62.

25. Baig N, Kam KW, Tham CC. Managing Primary Angle Closure Glaucoma - The Role of Lens Extraction in this Era. Open Ophthalmol J 2016; 10: 86‒93.

26. He M, Jiang Y, Huang S, Chang DS, Munoz B, Aung T, et al. Laser peripheral iridotomy for the prevention of angle closure: a single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2019; 393(10181): 1609‒18.

27. Lai J, Choy BN, Shum JW. Management of primary angle-closure glaucoma. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 2016; 5(1): 59–62.

28. Husain R, Do T, Lai J, Kitnarong N, Nongpiur ME, Perera SA, et al. Efficacy of phacoemulsification alone vs phacoemulsification with goniosynechialysis in patients with primary angle-closure disease: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol 2019; 137(10): 1107–13.

29. Aung T, Ang LP, Chan SP, Chew PT. Acute primary angle-closure: long-term intraocular pressure outcome in Asian eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 2001; 131(1): 7‒12.

30. Tan AM, Loon SC, Chew PT. Outcomes following acute primary angle closure in an Asian population. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2009; 37(5): 467‒72.

31. Weinreb RN, Moghimi S. Prophylactic laser iridotomy in primary angle closure suspects. Lancet 2019; 393(10181): 1572‒4.

32. Koh V, Keshtkaran MR, Hernstadt D, Aquino MCD, Chew PT, Sng C. Predicting the outcome of laser peripheral iridotomy for primary angle closure suspect eyes using anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Acta Ophthalmol 2019; 97(1): e57‒e63.