Skip to main content
Journal of Ophthalmology logoLink to Journal of Ophthalmology
. 2018 Oct 17;2018:5835791. doi: 10.1155/2018/5835791

Ocular Biometric Characteristics of Chinese with History of Acute Angle Closure

Wei-ran Niu 1, Chun-qiong Dong 1, Xi Zhang 1, Yi-fan Feng 1, Fei Yuan 1,
PMCID: PMC6207858  PMID: 30416827

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the biometric characteristics of Chinese patients with a history of acute angle closure (AAC).

Methods

In this clinic-based, retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study, biometric parameters of eyes were acquired from a general population of Chinese adults. The crowding value (defined as lens thickness (LT); central corneal thickness (CCT); anterior chamber depth (ACD)/axial length (AL)) was calculated for each patient. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for AAC. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted, and biometric variables were compared to compile a risk assessment for AAC.

Result

This study included 1500 healthy subjects (2624 eyes, mean age of 66.54 ± 15.82 years) and 107 subjects with AAC (202 eyes, mean age of 70.01 ± 11.05 years). Eyes with AAC had thicker lens (P ≤ 0.001), shallower anterior chamber depth (P ≤ 0.001), and shorter axial length (P ≤ 0.001) than healthy eyes. Logistic regression analysis and ROC curve analysis indicated that a crowding value above 0.13 was a significant (P < 0.05) risk factor for the development of AAC.

Conclusions

Biometric parameters were significantly different between the eyes from the AAC group to the normal group. Ocular crowding value might be a new noncontact screening method to assess the risk of AAC in adults.

1. Introduction

Glaucoma is a leading cause of ocular morbidity and blindness worldwide [1]. It is estimated that by 2020, there will be 79.6 million people suffering from glaucoma, of which 26% will have primary angle closure glaucoma (PACG) [2]. Previous studies have stated that PACG is responsible for nearly half the cases of glaucoma-related blindness in the world, and the prevalence of this condition is highest in China [2, 3].

In the Primary Angle Closure Preferred Practice Pattern® (PPP) guidelines (2016), acute angle closure crisis (AACC) is described as a suddenly occluded angle with symptomatic high IOP [4]. Acute angle closure (AAC) can occur rapidly, recur, and cause permanent vision loss or blindness [57]. Eyes with optic neuropathy caused by AAC will be diagnosed as primary angle-closure glaucoma. Since approximately half of fellow eyes of acute angle-closure patients can develop AACCs within 5 years, the fellow eye is also at high risk of AAC [4]. Preventive interventions can be effective in the treatment of patients with AAC [8, 9]; managing AACC successfully has been one of the main clinic objectives of PAC and, it is of paramount importance to assess the risk of AAC properly.

Notably, many ways have been used for detecting a closed angle to diagnose primary angle closure disease (PACD) instead of assessing the risk of AAC. For example, gonioscopy examination is the current gold standard for the detection of PACD [10], and is not so suitable for case-finding or large-scale population screening; Van Herick's method has been used as a substitutive assessment method of gonioscopy [11, 12], screening results of which may vary from one ophthalmologist to another [13].

Knowledge of biometric parameters is essential for understanding the development of ocular growth and AAC pathologies. Some ocular anatomical characteristics such as short axial length and shallow anterior chamber depth have been reported to be major risk factors of AAC [1418], and in other words, the “small eyes” are at a higher risk of developing AAC. However, the traditional biometric parameters such as anterior chamber depth or lens vault are not strong predictors of ACC [1921]. We speculate that the crowding condition of the eye would be a more important factor to trigger an AAC, and thus the parameters describing the condition should be more appropriate predictors for AAC.

It remains difficult to investigate the in-depth pathologies of AAC; but there may be a way to assess the risk of it. With identification of high-risk individuals, the development of AAC could be interrupted at the right time. Towards this end, we collected the ocular biometric parameters of Chinese subjects with an AAC history and compared those of AAC eyes to healthy eyes to identify a new method to assess the risk of AAC.

2. Materials and Methods

This retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study was approved by the Department of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China, and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.1. Study Population

Here, 1810 subjects were recruited consecutively between October 2013 and April 2015. The subjects were either outpatients or inpatients in the Department of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. All subjects were over 18 years old and from the ethnic Chinese Han population. Both healthy eyes and those with a history of AAC were selected; both eyes of each patient were included in the study. The healthy group included patients who presented at our clinic for glasses, minor external ocular discomfort, or cataracts with normal angles and optic nerve head. Patients with an AAC history should be clinic silent and intraocular pressures (IOPs) should be maintained in a normal range.

Data from subjects with AAC who were surgically treated for glaucoma or had a laser treatment such as laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) or were in the acute stage, with a history of ocular surgery, trauma, tumor, and pathologies such as detachment of retina or second glaucoma were excluded. Subjects younger than 18 years were also excluded. Pilocarpine treatment was discontinued at least one day before the examination, and IOP were measured during the examining period.

2.2. Study Design

All subjects underwent a thorough ophthalmic examination, which included slit-lamp biomicroscopy, IOP measurement by applanation tonometry, fundus examination, and measurements of other ocular biometrics. Central corneal thickness (CCT), lens thickness (LT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and axial length (AL) were measured using a LENSTAR LS 900 (Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland). The associated measurements were carried out by the same investigator, and the LENSTAR LS 900 measurement procedure has previously been described in detail elsewhere [22].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (Windows ver. 20.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Basic descriptive statistics were calculated on all data reported as mean value ± standard deviation. Categorical data were compared using the chi-squared test, and numerical data were compared employing one-way ANOVA and Student's t-test. Numerical data of eyes from one subject were compared using the paired sample t-test. All tests were two-tailed, and P values were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05.

Biometric parameters with statistically significant differences between the study group and the control group were used to build a binary conditional logistic regression analysis model to assess the risk of AAC. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted using crowding values (defined in Results) to obtain a suitable cutoff value to separate healthy from eyes at risk of AAC. The best sensitivity/specificity relationship was determined using the cutoff point extrapolated from the area under ROC curves and predicted probabilities.

3. Results

3.1. The Demographic Characteristics of all Subjects

Complete data were available for 107 subjects with an AAC history (202 eyes) and 1500 subjects (2624 eyes) in the control group (Table 1). The IOP of all the subjects were in the normal range from 10.0 to 21.0 mmHg.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of subject groups.

Parameter AAC group (n = 107) Control group (n =1500) P value
Female sex, n (%) 72 (67.3) 837 (55.8) 0.021
Mean age ± SD (y) 70.0 ± 11.1 66.5 ± 15.8 0.026
Right eye, n (%) 105 (52.0) 1411 (53.8) 0.661

3.2. Differences between the Biometric Parameters in the AAC and Control Groups and between Right and Left Eyes

AAC cases were significantly older (70 ± 11 years) than the control group (67 ± 16 years) (P=0.026). There were statistically more females in the AAC group compared with the control group (P=0.021), and there were no significant differences in all four biometric parameters between the right and left eyes of the AAC group (Table 2). The CCT, LT, and AL of two groups were significantly different (Table 3).

Table 2.

Comparison of biometric parameters between right and left eyes in the AAC and the control groups.

AAC group Control group
Right eye (mean ± SD) Left eye (mean ± SD) N (right/left) P value (paired Sample t- test) Right eye Left eye N (right/left) P value (paired Sample t-test)
CCT, μm 544.93 ± 41.82 539.89 ±35.80 87/87 0.155 538.03  ± 34.87 539.72  ± 36.05 1112/1112 0.000
AD, mm 1.82 ± 0.32 1.86 ± 0.39 87/87 0.274 2.69 ± 0.51 2.67 ± 0.51 1112/1112 0.134
LT, mm 4.89 ± 0.42 4.89 ± 0.42 87/87 0.915 4.37 ± 0.47 4.38 ± 0.48 1112/1112 0.050
AL, mm 22.89 ± 1.45 22.94 ± 1.61 87/87 0.336 24.80 ± 2.44 24.70 ± 2.37 1112/1112 0.000

CCT = central corneal thickness; ACD = anterior chamber depth; LT = lens thickness; AL = axial length.

Table 3.

Comparison of biometric parameters between the AAC and the control groups.

AAC (mean ± SD) Control group (mean ± SD) P value (Student's t-test)
CCT, μm 544.25 ± 38.97 539.17 ± 36.02 0.055
ACD, mm 1.85 ± 0.37 2.65 ± 0.50 0.000
LT, mm 4.88 ± 0.41 4.40 ± 0.47 0.000
AL, mm 22.88 ± 1.45 24.70 ± 2.40 0.000

CCT = central corneal thickness; ACD = anterior chamber depth; LT = lens thickness; AL = axial length.

3.3. Correlation between AAC Biometric Parameters Based on Logistic Regression Analysis

Shallower ACD and shorter AL as well as LT were significantly associated with the prediction of AAC by binary conditional logistic regression analysis, after adjustment for age and sex (Table 4). After adjusting for all other parameters, older age (ORs 1.018; P < 0.0001) was shown to be significantly associated with AAC by conditional logistic regression analysis.

Table 4.

Results of binary logistic regression analysis of biometric parameters for the prediction of AAC.

Adjusted odds ratios P value 95% confidence interval
CCT 1.005 0.077 1.000–1.009
ACD 0.014 0.000 0.009–0.031
LT 1.796 0.065 0.974–2.351
AL 0.872 0.017 0.745–0.972

CCT = central corneal thickness; ACD = anterior chamber depth; LT = lens thickness; AL = axial length.

3.4. Crowding Value and Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves

A crowding value was calculated from the following equation which was created based on our results:

crowding  value=CCT+LTACDAL. (1)

ROC curves were then plotted using crowding values to assess the risk of AAC. ROC curve analysis showed that the optimal probability cutoff for the assessment of AAC was a crowding value over 0.13, with the area under the curve being 0.899 ± 0.009 (Figure 1). The corresponding sensitivity and specificity of crowding measurement were 86.6% and 80.6%, respectively. ROC curves using other formulas previously reported in the literature to determine the risk of angle closure were also plotted (Table 5). Results of simple crowding value (calculated as (LT − ACD)/AL) are also listed in Table 5.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

ROC curves plotting sensitivity against one-specificity (Az ROC: area under the ROC curve). In our study, a cutoff of 0.13 for crowding value seems to be the best value to separate healthy eyes from those at risk of AAC.

Table 5.

Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, and cutoff value in healthy and AAC Subjects.

AUROC Sensitivity, specificity Cutoff
ASL, mm 0.690 48.5%, 81.7% ≤7.58
Ratio (ACD/AL) 0.879 84.8%, 81.2% ≤0.09
Ratio (LT/AL) 0.845 85.5%, 77.1% ≥0.20
Ratio (VCD/AL) 0.669 72.0%, 42.7% ≤0.89
Ratio (RLP) 0.611 50.2%, 78.2% ≤0.19
Ratio (crowding value) 0.899 86.6%, 80.6% ≥0.13
Ratio (simple crowding value) 0.897 84.7%, 81.8% ≥0.11

ACD = anterior chamber depth; LT = lens thickness; AL = axial length; ASL = anterior segment length; RLP = relative lens position; simple crowding value = (LT - ACD)/AL. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

4. Discussion

The Asian population has a high prevalence of AAC [2, 3, 23, 24]. Although AAC is well-studied, the pathological processes of AAC remains poorly understood. In the present study, we investigate the biometric characteristic of Han Chinese subjects with a history of AAC.

In many studies, only biometric data from one eye, commonly the right eye, were measured [19, 25]. PACD is a bilateral disease. Although 90% of AACs are unilateral, approximately half of fellow eyes of acute angle-closure patients can develop AACCs within 5 years; therefore, the contralateral eye of patients with a monocular AAC would be at high risk for AAC [18, 26, 27]. For this reason, biometric data from contralateral eyes were important for this analysis; accordingly data from both eyes were collected and analyzed.

There was no significant difference between the biometric parameters of the right eye and the left eye for patients in the AAC group, a finding which disagrees with previous study [28]. We presume that there might be two reasons for this contradictory finding. Firstly, the data from patients in the acute stage of AAC were excluded from this study, and data from patients in poor condition who underwent surgery or LPI were also excluded. Removal of these confounding factors led to a more homogenous AAC group.

In the present study, there were more females and older subjects in the AAC group in agreement with previous research [3, 29]. We found that the eyes of the AAC group had a shorter AL, shallower ACD, and thicker LT than normal eyes, consistent with other publications [15,3032]. There was no difference in CCT between the 2 groups; however, in our opinion, it would be too thin a cornea for eyes with a short AL in AAC group.

Earlier studies failed to identify an eye with AAC simply by the value of ACD [20, 27], LT [20,3335], AL [21,3638], and CCT [19, 39]. It was reported that patients with an ACD < 2.55 mm and a LT > 4.66 mm were at higher risk of APAC, with sensitivity of 60% and 67.6% and specificity of 65.3% and 60.5%, respectively [40].

Formulas were used to assess the risk of angle closure such as anterior segment length (ASL: summation of CCT, ACD, and LT) [19], the contribution of individual ocular components to the total axial (ACD/AL, LT/AL, VCD vitreous chamber depth/AL) [41], and the relative lens position (RLP: calculated as (ACD + 1/2LT)/AL) [42].

In the present study, we calculated a crowding value as follows: (LT+CCT-ACD)/AL according to the results of the logistic regression model. All four biometric parameters were shown to play a role in the development of AAC.

All these variables were calculated based on the recorded results of biometric parameters in the present study. The crowding value had the highest AUROC which means it is more sensitive and more specific than all the other variables mentioned in previous studies to assess the risk of AAC [40]. Changes in eyes with age such as an increase in LT make the structure of eyes more crowded, and a record of crowding value may help us to understand the development of ocular growth and AAC pathologies.

The results of our study should be interpreted with some limitations in mind. Firstly, because all patients were of Han Chinese descent and were recruited from the Department of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Hospital, the results of this study may not be applicable to other racial groups and may not be generalizable to the larger population. Secondly, some studies have shown that cortical or nuclear cataracts may also be associated with angle closure [41]. However, the presence of severe cataracts makes measurements of LT and AL difficult, so such patients were excluded. Thirdly, because not all patients should be examined with gonioscopy, PACS eyes without any complaints, special biometric parameters, and medical history might be included in the healthy participants although studies suggest that the majority of patients with PACS will not develop either PAC or PACG [8, 43]. Lastly, we excluded patients who had accepted laser peripheral iridotomy treatment or surgery as this might have led to unnatural biometric differences between the right and left eyes.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, ACC eyes have higher crowding values in terms of biometric parameters. Determination of ocular crowding value using ocular biometric parameters may represent a novel and rapid method to assess the risk of AAC. Future studies with a larger population representing different ethnic groups are needed to test the reliability and repeatability of our findings.

Acknowledgments

We thank for Yuan Yuan-zhi, MD for his suggestions and support. This study was supported by the Youth Foundation of Zhongshan Hospital (Grant no. 2017ZSQN47)

Data Availability

The datasets used to support this study are provided as a supplementary material file which includes the records of the demographic characteristics and biometric parameters of all the subjects.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this paper.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Materials

The supplementary material file includes the records of the demographic characteristics and biometric parameters of all the subjects.

References

  • 1.Thylefors B., Negrel A. D., Pararajasegaram R., DaGdzie K. Y. Global data on blindness. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 1995;73(1):115–121. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Quigley H. A., Broman A. T. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2006;90(3):262–267. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2005.081224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Foster P. J., Johnson G. J. Glaucoma in China: how big is the problem? British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2001;85(11):1277–1282. doi: 10.1136/bjo.85.11.1277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Prum B. E., Jr., Herndon L. W., Jr., Moroi S. E., et al. Primary angle closure preferred practice pattern((r)) guidelines. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(1):P112–P151. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.10.055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ang L. P., Aung T., Chua W. H., Yip L. W., Chew P. T. Visual field loss from primary angle-closure glaucoma: a comparative study of symptomatic and asymptomatic disease. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(9):1636–1640. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.01.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Weinreb R. N., Aung T., Medeiros F. A. The pathophysiology and treatment of glaucoma: a review. JAMA. 2014;311(18):1901–1911. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.3192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.American Academy of Ophthalmolog and Preferred Practice Patterns Committee. The Primary Angle Closure Preferred Practice Pattern® Guidelines. New York, NY, USA: Elsevier Inc.; 2015. http://www.aao.org/ppp. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Thomas R., George R., Parikh R., Muliyil J., Jacob A. Five year risk of progression of primary angle closure suspects to primary angle closure: a population based study. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2003;87(4):450–454. doi: 10.1136/bjo.87.4.450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Thomas R., Walland M. J. Management algorithms for primary angle closure disease. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology. 2013;41(3):282–292. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2012.02885.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nongpiur M. E., Wei X., Xu L., et al. Lack of association between primary angle-closure glaucoma susceptibility loci and the ocular biometric parameters anterior chamber depth and axial length. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2013;54(8):5824–5828. doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-11901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chan E. W., Li X., Tham Y. C., et al. Glaucoma in Asia: regional prevalence variations and future projections. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2015;100(1):78–85. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-306102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Park S. B., Sung K. R., Kang S. Y., Jo J. W., Lee K. S., Kook M. S. Assessment of narrow angles by gonioscopy, Van Herick method and anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology. 2011;55(4):343–350. doi: 10.1007/s10384-011-0036-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Thomas R., George T., Braganza A., Muliyil J. The flashlight test and van Herick’s test are poor predictors for occludable angles. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology. 1996;24(3):251–256. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.1996.tb01588.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tomlinson A., Leighton D. A. Ocular dimensions in the heredity of angle-closure glaucoma. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 1973;57(7):475–486. doi: 10.1136/bjo.57.7.475. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lowe R. F. Aetiology of the anatomical basis for primary angle-closure glaucoma. Biometrical comparisons between normal eyes and eyes with primary angle-closure glaucoma. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 1970;54(3):161–169. doi: 10.1136/bjo.54.3.161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nongpiur M. E., Sakata L. M., Friedman D. S., et al. Novel association of smaller anterior chamber width with angle closure in Singaporeans. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(10):1967–1973. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.02.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Nongpiur M. E., He M., Amerasinghe N., et al. Lens vault, thickness, and position in Chinese subjects with angle closure. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(3):474–479. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.07.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sun X., Dai Y., Chen Y., et al. Primary angle closure glaucoma: what we know and what we don’t know. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. 2017;57:26–45. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2016.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cheung S. W., Cho P. Validity of axial length measurements for monitoring myopic progression in orthokeratology. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2013;54(3):1613–1615. doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-10434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lan Y. W., Hsieh J. W., Hung P. T. Ocular biometry in acute and chronic angle-closure glaucoma. Ophthalmologica. 2007;221(6):388–394. doi: 10.1159/000107498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sun J. H., Sung K. R., Yun S. C., et al. Factors associated with anterior chamber narrowing with age: an optical coherence tomography study. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2012;53(6):2607–2610. doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-9359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Shammas H. J., Hoffer K. J. Repeatability and reproducibility of biometry and keratometry measurements using a noncontact optical low-coherence reflectometer and keratometer. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2012;153(1):55.e2–61.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wong T. Y., Loon S. C., Saw S. M. The epidemiology of age related eye diseases in Asia. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2006;90(4):506–511. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2005.083733. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tham Y. C., Li X., Wong T. Y., Quigley H. A., Aung T., Cheng C. Y. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(11):2081–2090. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Iribarren R., Morgan I. G., Nangia V., Jonas J. B. Crystalline lens power and refractive error. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2012;53(2):543–550. doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-8523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Seah S. K., Foster P. J., Chew P. T., et al. Incidence of acute primary angle-closure glaucoma in Singapore: an island-wide survey. Archives of Ophthalmology. 1997;115(11):1436–1440. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1997.01100160606014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Friedman D. S., Gazzard G., Foster P., et al. Ultrasonographic biomicroscopy, Scheimpflug photography, and novel provocative tests in contralateral eyes of Chinese patients initially seen with acute angle closure. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2003;121(5):633–642. doi: 10.1001/archopht.121.5.633. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lee J. R., Sung K. R., Han S. Comparison of anterior segment parameters between the acute primary angle closure eye and the fellow eye. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2014;55(6):3646–3650. doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-13009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Thomas R., Mengersen K., Thomas A., Walland M. J. Understanding the causation of primary angle closure disease using the sufficient component cause model. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology. 2014;42(6):522–528. doi: 10.1111/ceo.12245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.George R., Paul P. G., Baskaran M., et al. Ocular biometry in occludable angles and angle closure glaucoma: a population based survey. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2003;87(4):399–402. doi: 10.1136/bjo.87.4.399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.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(11):2091–2098. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(98)91132-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Casson R. J. Anterior chamber depth and primary angle-closure glaucoma: an evolutionary perspective. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology. 2008;36(1):70–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2008.01672.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mimiwati Z., Fathilah J. Ocular biometry in the subtypes of primary angle closure glaucoma in University Malaya Medical Centre. Medical Journal of Malaysia. 2001;56(3):341–349. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lim M. C., Lim L. S., Gazzard G., et al. Lens opacity, thickness, and position in subjects with acute primary angle closure. Journal of Glaucoma. 2006;15(3):260–263. doi: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000212212.10395.76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Salmon J. F., Swanevelder S. A., Donald M. A. The dimensions of eyes with chronic angle-closure glaucoma. Journal of Glaucoma. 1994;3(3):237–243. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Aptel F., Denis P. Optical coherence tomography quantitative analysis of iris volume changes after pharmacologic mydriasis. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(1):3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.10.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Cheung C. Y., Liu S., Weinreb R. N., et al. Dynamic analysis of iris configuration with anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2010;51(8):4040–4046. doi: 10.1167/iovs.09-3941. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Congdon N. G., Youlin Q., Quigley H., et al. Biometry and primary angle-closure glaucoma among Chinese, white, and black populations. Ophthalmology. 1997;104(9):1489–1495. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(97)30112-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Chang P. Y., Chang S. W. Corneal biomechanics, optic disc morphology, and macular ganglion cell complex in myopia. Journal of Glaucoma. 2013;22(5):358–362. doi: 10.1097/ijg.0b013e3182447a17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Razeghinejad M. R., Banifatemi M. Ocular biometry in angle closure. Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research. 2013;8(1):17–24. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Debert I., Polati M., Jesus D. L., Souza E. C., Alves M. R. Biometric relationships of ocular components in esotropic amblyopia. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia. 2012;75(1):38–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Merula R. V., Cronemberger S., Diniz Filho A., Calixto N. New comparative clinical and biometric findings between acute primary angle-closure and glaucomatous eyes with narrow angle. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia. 2010;73(6):511–516. doi: 10.1590/s0004-27492010000600009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wilensky J. T., Kaufman P. L., Frohlichstein D., et al. Follow-up of angle-closure glaucoma suspects. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 1993;115(3):338–346. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(14)73585-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Materials

The supplementary material file includes the records of the demographic characteristics and biometric parameters of all the subjects.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used to support this study are provided as a supplementary material file which includes the records of the demographic characteristics and biometric parameters of all the subjects.


Articles from Journal of Ophthalmology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES