rss
Br J Ophthalmol 2008;92:340-344 doi:10.1136/bjo.2007.114876
  • Original Article
    • Clinical science

Clinical features distinguishing angle closure from pseudoplateau versus plateau iris

  1. S Shukla1,
  2. K F Damji2,
  3. P Harasymowycz3,
  4. D Chialant2,
  5. J S Kent4,
  6. R Chevrier2,
  7. R Buhrmann2,
  8. D Marshall2,
  9. Y Pan2,
  10. W Hodge2
  1. 1
    University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
  2. 2
    University of Ottawa Eye Institute, Ottawa, Canada
  3. 3
    University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
  4. 4
    University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
  1. K F Damji, University of Ottawa Eye Institute, 501 Smyth Rd., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H 8L6; kdamji{at}ohri.ca
  • Accepted 2 May 2007
  • Published Online First 22 January 2008

Abstract

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.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

  • Ethics approval: Ethics approval not required.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF
  4. All versions of this article:
    1. bjo.2007.114876v1
    2. 92/3/340 most recent

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.