Clinical features distinguishing angle closure from pseudoplateau versus plateau iris

Purpose: To evaluate clinical aspects of patients with the diagnosis of plateau iris (PI) or pseudoplateau iris (PPI) made by ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) in order to determine if there are any clinical factors that can help differentiate between these two entities.Method: A retrospective cohort o...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBritish journal of ophthalmology Vol. 92; no. 3; pp. 340 - 344
Main Authors Shukla, S, Damji, K F, Harasymowycz, P, Chialant, D, Kent, J S, Chevrier, R, Buhrmann, R, Marshall, D, Pan, Y, Hodge, W
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 01.03.2008
BMJ
BMJ Publishing Group LTD
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Purpose: To evaluate clinical aspects of patients with the diagnosis of plateau iris (PI) or pseudoplateau iris (PPI) made by ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) in order to determine if there are any clinical factors that can help differentiate between these two entities.Method: A retrospective cohort of consecutive UBM patients with the diagnosis of PI or PPI. The diagnosis of PI was based on an anteriorly positioned ciliary body that abutted the peripheral iris, a narrow (<10°) or closed angle for at least 180°, and the anterior portion of the iris positioned anterior to scleral spur. The diagnosis of PPI was similar to plateau except that large or a cluster of small cysts had to be present in the iridociliary sulcus.Results: There were a total of 76 patients (29% male), 21 with PPI and 55 with PI. Patients with PPI were more likely to be male (p = 0.005), slightly younger (51.5 (SD 10.7) vs 57.9 (10.2) p = 0.0190), have a “bumpy” peripheral iris appearance (p = 0.003), have greater trabecular meshwork pigmentation (2.0 (0.7) vs 1.3 (0.6) p = 0.004) and have fewer clock hours of gonioscopic angle closure versus plateau iris patients (5.1 (4.3) vs 9.2 (4.2) p = 0.0009). Spherical equivalent was not significantly different between groups (0.50D (1.69) PPI vs 1.33D (2.42) PI; p = 0.187).Conclusions: In patients being referred to a UBM clinic for evaluation of angle-closure mechanism, younger males with a bumpy peripheral iris have a higher likelihood of having a diagnosis of pseudoplateau iris. However, clinical factors do not appear to discriminate well between PPI and PI. UBM is extremely helpful in confirming underlying mechanism and guiding therapy.
Bibliography:local:bjophthalmol;92/3/340
PMID:18211929
istex:04198ED05FF12F3D8389F44FB52158446068F507
ark:/67375/NVC-TS8RVRBS-5
href:bjophthalmol-92-340.pdf
ArticleID:bj114876
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ISSN:0007-1161
1468-2079
DOI:10.1136/bjo.2007.114876