Title: Study of interocular asymmetry of visual field defects in Primary open angle glaucoma and Primary angle closure glaucoma

Authors: Dr Rishika H, Dr Vidyadevi M, Dr Manasa Penumetcha

 DOI:  https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v6i1.36

Abstract

Aim: To study the interocular asymmetry of visual field defects in primary open angle glaucoma and primary angle closure glaucoma

Materials and Methods: A hospital based, randomised, prospective, observational study of 200 eyes of 100 patients fulfilling the inclusion / exclusion criteria attending the outpatient department of Minto ophthalmic hospital from October 2013 to February 2016. Patients detailed history taken and ocular examination done, followed by static automated white on white perimetry with size III stimulus, 24 – 2 SITA standard. AGIS scores (total, superior, inferior, nasal) and global indices analysed. Comparisons between POAG and PACG were made for the mean asymmetry scores of total/nasal/superior/inferior hemifields and mean asymmetry score of individual global indices (MD and PSD).

Results: The mean IOP was higher in PACG group (30.06 3.5mmHg) vs POAG group (27.05 +2.5mm Hg) at the time of diagnosis. Higher mean ocular asymmetry score in global indices M.D ( POAG - 1.72 ±8.6 vs PACG -4.63±9.7, p <0.0001), PSD ( POAG 1.42 ± 0.16 vs PACG 2.20 ± 0.22, p<0.0001) and AGIS total score (POAG 2.23 ± 0.14 vs PACG1.4 ± 0.12, p< 0.0001), superior score( POAG 0.74 ± 0.16 vs PACG1.04 ± 0.22, p<0.0001), inferior score(POAG   0.66 ± 0.3 vs PACG1.18 ± 0.9,p<0.0001), nasal score(POAG 0.30 ± 0.06 vs PACG 0.38 ± 0.09, p = 0.5269).Correlation values also indicated higher asymmetry in PACG group.

Conclusion: There is greater interocular asymmetry of visual field defects as measured by AGIS and global indices in PACG than POAG.

Keywords: visual fields, POAG, PACG, Interocular asymmetry.

References

  1. Bruce Shields, R. Rand Allingham, Karim F. et al. Shields’ Textbook of Glaucoma.7th ed; Lipincott Williams & Wilkins:1.
  2. C Tham, Xiang Li, T.Y wong et al. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040.American journal of ophthalmology, Elsevier pub. Nov 2014, vol 121,issue 11.pg 2081-2090.
  3. Robert L Stamper, Marc F Lieberman, Michael V Drake. Becker-Shaffer’s Diagnosis and Therapy of the Glaucomas, 8th edition – 2009; Elsevier Inc. 129.
  4. J-C Wang, G Gazzard, PJ Foster et al. Interocular asymmetry of visual field defects in primary open angle glaucoma and primary angle closure glaucoma. The Eye .2004; 18: 365–368.
  5. Chen PP, Correlation of visual field progression between eyes in patients with open-angle glaucoma, American journal of ophthalmology. 2002 Nov; 109(11):2093-9.
  6. Chauhan BC, Drance SM .The relationship between intraocular pressure and visual field progression in glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1992; 230 :521 – 526.
  7. Ritch R, Lowe RF. Angle closure glaucoma: mechanisms and epidemiology . The Glaucomas St Louis, Mosby 1996;801 – 819.
  8. Gazzard G, Foster PJ, Devereux J, Viswanathan et al. The severity-spatial distribution of visual field defects in Primary Glaucoma: A comparison of POAG and PACG. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120: 1636–1643.
  9. Rhee KY et al. Comparison of visual field defects between primary open-angle glaucoma and chronic primary angle closure glaucoma in the early or moderate stage of the disease. Korean J Ophthalmol 2001; 15: 27–31.
  10. Caprioli J: Automated perimetry in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1991;111: 235–239.
  11. Bonomi L, Marrafa M, Marchini G, Canali M .Perimetric defects after a single acute angle-closure glaucoma attack. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1 999; 237:  908- 914.

Corresponding Author

Dr Rishika H

MBBS, MS, Minto Ophthalmic Hospital, BMC & RI

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.