This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: bjo.2007.114876v1 92/3/340    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Shukla, S Articles by Hodge, W Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Shukla, S Articles by Hodge, W

Clinical features distinguishing angle closure from pseudoplateau versus plateau iris

¹ University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
² University of Ottawa Eye Institute, Ottawa, Canada
³ University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
⁴ University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

Correspondence to:
K F Damji, University of Ottawa Eye Institute, 501 Smyth Rd., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H 8L6; kdamji{at}ohri.ca

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.

Ethics approval: Ethics approval not required.