Aim: To evaluate the biometric difference between eyes with acute angle-closure (AAC) attack, their uninvolved fellow eyes and eyes with chronic angle-closure glaucoma (CACG). Methods: Patients with prior laser iridotomy on both eyes for unilateral AAC attack or CACG were recruited. We compared ocular biometric parameters by A-scan ultrasonography of the acutely affected eyes with those of the uninvolved fellow eyes and with eyes affected by CACG. Results: Thirty-three patients with unilateral AAC attack and 41 patients with CACG were included. The eyes with AAC attack had a significantly shallower anterior chamber depth (ACD), thicker lens, shorter axial length, higher lens/axial length factor and more anteriorly positioned lens than the eyes with CACG. The uninvolved fellow eyes had a significantly shallower ACD, shorter axial length and higher lens/axial length factor compared with the eyes with CACG. Acutely affected eyes had a shallower ACD and more anteriorly positioned lens than did the uninvolved fellow eyes. Conclusion: Eyes with AAC attack had a more crowded anterior segment compared with uninvolved fellow eyes and those affected by CACG. In addition to ACD, relative lens size, represented by the lens/axial length factor, and relative lens position appear to play important roles in the development of AAC attack.

1.
Quigley HA, Broman AT: The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol 2006;90:262–267.
2.
Congdon N, Wang F, Tielsch JM: Issues in the epidemiology and population-based screening of primary angle-closure glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol 1992;36:411–423.
3.
Foster PJ, Baasanhu J, Alsbirk PH, Munkhbayar D, Uranchimeg D, Johnson GJ: Glaucoma in Mongolia: a population-based survey in Hovsgol province, northern Mongolia. Arch Ophthalmol 1996;114:1235–1241.
4.
Foster PJ, Oen FT, Machin D, Ng TP, Devereux JG, Johnson GJ, Khaw PT, Seah SK: The prevalence of glaucoma in Chinese residents of Singapore: a cross-sectional population survey of the Tanjong Pagar district. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118:1105–1111.
5.
Congdon NG, Quigley HA, Hung PT, Wang TH, Ho TC: Screening techniques for angle-closure glaucoma in rural Taiwan. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1996;74:113–119.
6.
Lai JS, Liu DT, Tham CC, Li RT, Lam DS: Epidemiology of acute primary angle-closure glaucoma in the Hong Kong Chinese population: prospective study. Hong Kong Med J 2001;7:118–123.
7.
Seah SK, Foster PJ, Chew PT, Jap A, Oen F, Fam HB, Lim AS: Incidence of acute primary angle-closure glaucoma in Singapore. Arch Ophthalmol 1997,115:1436–1440.
8.
Quigley HA: Long-term follow-up of laser iridotomy. Ophthalmology 1981;88:218–222.
9.
Yang CH, Hung PT: Widening of the anterior chamber angle after laser iridotomy proven by Scheimpflug imaging technique. Ann Ophthalmol 1997;29:374–377.
10.
Ang LP, Aung T, Chew PT: Acute primary angle closure in an Asian population: long-term outcome of the fellow eye after prophylactic laser peripheral iridotomy. Ophthalmology 2000;107:2092–2096.
11.
Bain WES: The fellow eye in acute closed-angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1957;41:193–199.
12.
Tomlinson A, Leighton DA: Ocular dimensions in the heredity of angle-closure glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1973;57:475–486.
13.
Lowe RF: Aetiology of the anatomical basis for primary angle-closure glaucoma: biometric comparisons between normal eyes and eyes with primary angle-closure glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1970;54:161–169.
14.
Alsbirk PH: Primary angle-closure glaucoma: oculometry, epidemiology and genetics in a high risk population. Acta Ophthalmol Suppl 1976;127:5–31.
15.
Hung PT, Hou YC, Lan WL, Tsai CB, Liang KY: Chamber angle and biometric study in PACG and its lens; in Krieglstein GK (ed): Glaucoma Update. Heidelberg, Kaden, 1995, vol 5, pp 309–314.
16.
Foster PJ, Buhrmann R, Quigley HA, Johnson GJ: The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:238–242.
17.
Qi Y: Ultrasonic evaluation of the lens thickness to axial length factor in primary closure angle glaucoma. Eye Science 1993;9:12–14.
18.
Lee DA, Brubaker RF, Ilstrup DM: Anterior chamber dimensions in patients with narrow angles and angle-closure glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102:46–50.
19.
Wilensky JT, Kaufman PL, Frohlichstein D, Gieser DK, Kass MA, Ritch R, Anderson R: Follow-up of angle-closure glaucoma suspects. Am J Ophthalmol 1993;115:338–346.
20.
Marchini G, Pagliarusco A, Toscano A, Tosi R, Brunelli C, Bonomi L: Ultrasound biomicroscopic and conventional ultrasonographic study of ocular dimensions in primary angle-closure glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1998;105:2091–2098.
21.
Hou YC, Hung PT, Lee YC, Tsai CB, Lin LLK: Biometric differences in normal, cataract and glaucoma subjects. J Med Ultrasound 1996;4:118–123.
22.
Salmon JF, Swanevelder SA, Donald MA: The dimensions of eyes with chronic angle-closure glaucoma. J Glaucoma1994;3:237–243.
23.
Friedman DS, Gazzard G, Foster P, Devereux J, Broman A, Quigley H, Tielsch J, Seah S: Ultrasonographic biomicroscopy, Scheimpflug photography, and novel provocative tests in contralateral eyes of Chinese patients initially seen with acute angle closure. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:633–642.
24.
Markowitz SN, Morin JD: The ratio of lens thickness to axial length for biometric standardization in angle-closure glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1985;99:400–402.
25.
Panek WC, Christensen RE, Lee DA, Fazio DT, Fox LE, Scott TV: Biometric variables in patients with occludable anterior chamber angles. Am J Ophthalmol 1990;110:185–188.
26.
Hung PT, Chou LH: Provocation and mechanism of angle-closure glaucoma after iridectomy. Arch Ophthalmol 1979;97:1862–1864.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.