BackgroundTo evaluate ocular biometric parameters in different subtypes of acute angle closure and compared to fellow eyes of AAC and PACS eyes.MethodsThis is a retrospective chart review study. A total of 167 eyes (96 patients) consisting of 71 AAC eyes, 71 fellow eyes of AAC, and 25 PACS eyes were recruited. All patients underwent ocular examination and biometry. The mechanism of AAC was confirmed by ultrasound biomicroscopy. We then subdivided AAC eyes into four subgroups: crowded-angle (CR), lens subluxation (LS) pupillary block (PB), and plateau iris syndrome (PL). Outcome variables included anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), vitreal length (VL), axial length (AL), lens position and relative lens position (LP and RLP, respectively), and lens axial length factor (LAF).ResultsAmong the three groups, ACD was shallower in AAC eyes than fellow eyes of AAC and PACS eyes (p < 0.01 for both) and AAC eyes demonstrated a lesser LP and RLP. The LT, VL, AL, and LAF were not significantly different among the three groups. Among the four subgroups, LS displayed the most shallow ACD (p = 0.01). The lens position in PL was greater than in CR and LS (p < 0.05 and <0.01, respectively).ConclusionsAAC eyes had a more anterior lens position than fellow eyes and PACS eyes, though lens thickness did not differ among the groups. As such, an anterior lens position may offer more sensitive prognostication regarding future development of AAC compared to lens thickness.
The most common mechanism contributing to AAC development in this Thai population was iridolenticular wrapping. From this study, we suggest that iridolenticular wrapping was the most common hidden mechanism beyond pupillary block among Thai patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.