急性闭角型青光眼对侧眼与可疑原发房角关闭眼的前节参数比较

目的：探讨原发闭角型青光眼单侧急性发作( acute angle closure glaucoma,AACG)的对侧眼、可疑原发房角关闭眼(primary angle closure suspects,PACS)和正常眼的前节生物学参数差异。
　　方法：采用光学相干断层扫描( optical coherence tomography,OCT)和 Pentacam 三维眼前节分析诊断系统(pentacam scheimpflug system,Pentacam)完成26例26眼AACG对侧眼及与之年龄、性别匹配的28例28眼PACS和34例34眼正常眼的前节扫描。采用Pentacam获得以下参数：中央角膜厚度( CCT)、角膜容积( CV)、瞳孔直径( PD)、中央前房深度( CACD)、周边前房深度( PACD)、前房容积( CV )和房角度数( ACA )。应用图像处理软件和OCT测量虹膜厚度(IT750,IT2000),面积(IS)、体积(IV)和房角开放距离500( AOD500)进行。
　　结果：角膜参数(CCT,CV),PD、虹膜参数(IT750,IT2000, IS,IV)无统计学差异( P>0.05)。与 AACG 对侧眼和PACS比较,正常人CACD和PACD更深, ACV更大, ACA和AOD500更宽敞( P<0.05)。 AACG对侧眼和PACS相比,各项前节解剖参数均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。以AACG对侧眼作为房角关闭好发的诊断标准,上述前房参数的受试者工作特征曲线下面积均小于0.7。
　　结论：AACG对侧眼和PACS的前节生物学参数无显著差异,以此作为房角关闭好发的诊断精准度较低。

Comparison of anterior segment parameters between fellow eyes of unilateral acute angle closure glaucoma and primary angle closure suspects

AIM: To explore the differences of anterior segment parameters in the patients with fellow eyes of unilateral acute angle-closure glaucoma(AACG), primary angle-closure suspects(PACS)and normal group.

METHODS: Twenty-six eyes of 26 patients with fellow eyes of AACG, 28 eyes of 28 age- and gender-matched PACS and 34 normal eyes were imaged using optical coherence tomography(OCT)and pentacam scheimpflug system(Pentacam). Anatomical parameters including central corneal thickness(CCT), corneal volume(CV), pupillary diameter(PD), central anterior chamber depth(CACD), peripheral anterior chamber depth(PACD), anterior chamber volume(ACV)and anterior chamber angle(ACA)were obtained from Pentacam. Iris thickness(IT750,IT2 000), cross-sectional area(IS), volume(IV)and angle opening distance 500(AOD500)were estimated using OCT combined with a computer image processing. Statistic analysis was performed with SPSS.

RESULTS: There were no significant differences in corneal parameters(CCT, CV), PD and iris values(IT750, IT2 000, IS, IV)among the three groups(P>0.05). Compared with the fellow eyes of AACG and PACS, normal eyes had larger ACV, wider AOD500 and ACA, deeper CACD and PACD(P<0.05). No anatomical difference was observed between the fellow eyes of AACG and PACS(P>0.05). Using the fellow eyes of AACG as the standard to predict high risk of angle closure, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the above parameters were all less than 0.7.

CONCLUSION: All the anterior segment parameters are no different significantly between the fellow eyes of AACG and PACS. They may be notaccurate criteria for determining high risk group of PACS.