Trends in the characteristics of acute primary angle closure in Korea over the past 10-years

Abstract

PurposeTo investigate the changes in the demographic, clinical, and biometric characteristics of APAC patients in South Korea during the last decade.MethodsMedical records of patients with APAC who visit the emergency department or the glaucoma clinic of Chonnam National University Hospital, a tertiary referral center in Gwangju, South Korea in 2007 and 2017 were analyzed. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment modality were compared between the APAC patients in 2007 and 2017.ResultsThe number of patients with APAC increased from 54 in 2007 to 68 in 2017. Female patients in their 60s were most common in both groups and there was no significant difference in IOP, cataract grade, gonioscopic grading, PAS, or optic nerve damage between the two groups at baseline visit (all P > 0.05). However, APAC eyes in 2017 had a shallower ACD (1.74 ± 0.28 mm vs 1.87 ± 0.35 mm; P = 0.024) and greater LV (1.05 ± 0.26 mm vs 0.93 ± 0.19 mm; P = 0.001) than those of APAC eyes in 2007. During one year follow-up, 25 patients (51.02%) received LPI only, and 18 patients (36.73%) required LE, and 6 patients (12.24%) required phacotrabeculectomy or sequential LE and trabeculectomy. However, in 2017, LPI alone was sufficient in 23 patients (38.33%), 29 patients (48.33%) required further LE, and 8 patients (13.33%) required phacotrabeculectomy or sequential LE and trabeculectomy for the treatment of APAC (P = 0.015).ConclusionsCompared to older cases of APAC, recent cases received LE more frequently, which suggests an increasing trend of LE as a treatment option for APAC. In addition, recent cases had a greater LV and shallower ACD than older cases and these biometric differences may be one of the reasons for increasing rate of LE in this study.

Vision-Threatening Ocular Adverse Events after Vaccination against Coronavirus Disease 2019

“…The median age of our four ACG patients was 69.5 years, and the women to men ratio was 3:1, similar to that in a multi-centered Korean study with an average age of 64.28 years and sex ratio of 3.13:1 [ 26 ]. Axial lengths of our ACG subjects were 21.84 mm, 22.95 mm, 22.37 mm, and 23.71 mm, which were similar with average 22.42 mm in one of acute primary angle-closure studies in Korea [ 27 ]. Conversely, our subjects’ anterior chamber depths (ACDs) were 2.19 mm, 2.19 mm, 2.89 mm, and 2.31 mm, which were deeper than the average ACDs in ACG cases in Korea (1.87 mm) in 2017 [ 27 ].…”

“…Axial lengths of our ACG subjects were 21.84 mm, 22.95 mm, 22.37 mm, and 23.71 mm, which were similar with average 22.42 mm in one of acute primary angle-closure studies in Korea [ 27 ]. Conversely, our subjects’ anterior chamber depths (ACDs) were 2.19 mm, 2.19 mm, 2.89 mm, and 2.31 mm, which were deeper than the average ACDs in ACG cases in Korea (1.87 mm) in 2017 [ 27 ].…”

The Outbreak of Acute Primary Angle-Closure Cases During the COVID-19 Omicron Variant Pandemic at a Tertiary Eye Center in Shanghai

“…Additionally, these data are very similar to those of previous reports in China or Korea in the non-pandemic period. 26,[35][36][37] However, the time from symptoms to treatment in the pandemic group was 7.92 ± 6.14 days, which was significantly longer than that in the control group (3.63 ± 2.93 days). In the pandemic group, the time from symptoms to treatment in COVID-19-positive patients was 8.42 ± 6.21 days, which was longer than that in COVID-19-negative patients (6.55 ± 5.76 days).…”

Detection of primary angleclosure suspect with different mechanisms of angle closure using multivariate prediction models

“…Previous studies have reported that the AC mechanism involved in most AAC eyes and fellow eyes of AAC is predominantly PB, while non‐pupillary block or multiple mechanisms have a greater role in non‐acute presentations (Barkan 1954 ; Zhou et al 1993 ; Moghimi et al 2018 ). Acute angle‐closure (AAC) is a subtype of PACD and an ocular emergency which in the absence of timely treatment causes permanent visual loss (Ha et al 2019 ).…”