Risk and risk factors for blindness from glaucoma

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 107-111

  Chen, Philip P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Blindness; Glaucoma; Risk factors; Screening

Indexed keywords

AGE; BLINDNESS; CLINICAL FEATURE; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; HUMAN; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK; RISK FACTOR; SCREENING TEST; VISUAL FIELD;

BLINDNESS; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 1842451861     PISSN: 10408738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00055735-200404000-00009     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Thylefors B, Negrel A-D: The global impact of glaucoma. Bull World Health Org 1994, 72:323-326.
2. Quigley HA: Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol 1996, 80:389-393.
3. Foster PJ, Johnson GJ: Glaucoma in China: how big is the problem? Br J Ophthalmol 2001, 85:1277-1282.
4. Blomdahl S, Calissendorff BM, Tengroth B, et al.: Blindness in glaucoma patients. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1997, 75:589-591.
5. Sommer A, Tielsch JM, Katz J, et al.: Racial differences in the cause-specific prevalence of blindness in East Baltimore. N Engl J Med 1991, 325:1412-1417.
6. Coffey M, Reidy A, Wormald R, et al.: Prevalence of glaucoma in the West of Ireland. Br J Ophthalmol 1993, 77:17-21.
7. Dielemans I, Vingerling JR, Wolfs RCW, et al.: The prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma in a population-based study in the Netherlands. The Rotterdam Study. Ophthalmology 1994, 101:1851-1855.
8. Congdon NG, Friedman DS: Angle-closure glaucoma: impact, etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2003, 14:70-73. Excellent review of current thinking in angle-closure glaucoma.
9. Rotchford AP, Kirwan JF, Muller MA, et al.: Temba glaucoma study: A population-based cross-sectional survey in urban South Africa. Ophthalmology 2003, 110:376-382. Describes an extremely high rate of blindness from glaucoma, using modern and stringent methodology. This could be considered the urban counterpart to reference 24.
10. Ramakrishnan R, Nirmalan PK, Krishnadas R, et al.: Glaucoma in a rural population of southern India. The Aravind comprehensive eye survey. Ophthalmology 2003, 110:1484-1490. Another population-based survey that uses current definitions and methodology. Little has previously been reported in this area from the Indian subcontinent.
11. Rodriguez J, Sanchez R, Munoz B, et al.: Causes of blindness and visual impairment in a population-based sample of U.S. Hispanics. Ophthalmology 2002, 109:737-743. Proyecto VER is a population-based study of primarily Mexican-American Hispanics in southern Arizona. This paper, combined with reference 23, provides data on glaucoma-related blindness in Hispanic Americans, an ethnic group that is the fastest-growing minority group in America.
12. Foster PJ, Oen FTS, Machin D, et al.: The prevalence of glaucoma in Chinese residents of Singapore. A cross-sectional population survey of the Tanjong Pagar District. Arch Ophthalmol 2000, 113:1105-1111.
13. Foster PJ, Baasanhu J, Alsbirk PH, et al.: Glaucoma in Mongolia. A population-based survey in Hovsgol province, northern Mongolia. Arch Ophthalmol 1996, 114:1235-1241.
14. Chen PP: Blindness among patients with treated open angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2003, 110:726-733. A retrospective review of 186 patients with a median duration of disease of 10 years reveals a relatively low Kaplan-Meier estimate of blindness. The usual caveats associated with retrospective studies apply, but the cohort has initial characteristics similar to that of recent prospective studies (Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study, CIGTS).
15. Hattenhauer MG, Johnson DH, Ing HH, et al.: The probability of blindness from open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1998, 105:2099-2104.
16. Katz J, Tielsch JM, Quigley HA, et al.: Automated perimetry detects visual field loss before manual Goldmann perimetry. Ophthalmology 1995, 102:21-26.
17. Johnson DH: Progress in glaucoma: early detection, new treatments, less blindness. Ophthalmology 2003, 110:634-635. Summarizes the findings of recent studies and draws conclusions that clinicians should heed.
18. Wilson MR, Kosoko O, Cowan CL Jr, et al.: Progression of visual field loss in untreated glaucoma patients and glaucoma suspects in St. Lucia, West Indies. Am J Ophthalmol 2002, 134:399-405. This follow-up study of a population-based survey describes long-term results of untreated glaucoma and glaucoma suspects in a manner that will probably be difficult to reproduce in the future. The figures for progression and blindness provide perspective on recent prospective studies and reports.
19. Alsagoff Z, Aung T, Ang LP, et al.: Long-term clinical course of primary angle-closure glaucoma in an Asian population. Ophthalmology 2000, 107:2300-2304.
20. Rosman M, Aung T, Ang LP, et al.: Chronic angle-closure with glaucomatous damage: long-term clinical course in a North American population and comparison with an Asian population. Ophthalmology 2002, 109:2227-2231. Underscores the difficulty of control in chronic ACG, and helps dispel the myth that East Asian and Western populations are distinctly different in the course of their disease.
21. 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.
22. Quigley HA, Vitale S: Models of open-angle glaucoma prevalence and incidence in the United States. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997, 38:83-91.
23. Quigley HA, West SK, Rodriguez J, et al.: The prevalence of glaucoma in a population-based study of Hispanic subjects. Proyecto VER. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001, 119:1819-1826.
24. Rotchford AP, Johnson GJ: Glaucoma in Zulus: a population-based cross-sectional survey in a rural district in South Africa. Arch Ophthalmol 2002, 120:471-478. As with most current population-based surveys, stringent methodology and current definitions are used, allowing for easier comparisons between populations.
25. Grant WM, Burke JF Jr: Why do some people go blind from glaucoma? Ophthalmology 1982, 89:991-998.
26. Kwon YH, Kim CS, Zimmerman MB, et al.: Rate of visual field loss and long-term visual outcome in primary open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2001, 132:47-56.
27. Oliver JE, Hattenhauer MG, Herman D, et al.: Blindness and glaucoma: a comparison of patients progressing to blindness from glaucoma with patients maintaining vision. Am J Ophthalmol 2002, 133:764-772. A case-control retrospective study that emphasizes the characteristics of patients who go blind from glaucoma. Clinicians will appreciate that some of these risk factors are alterable.
28. Nolan WP, Foster PJ, Devereux JG, et al.: YAG laser iridotomy treatment for primary angle closure in east Asian eyes. Br J Ophthalmol 2000, 84:1255-1259.
29. Racette L, Wilson MR, Zangwill L, et al.: Primary open-angle glaucoma in blacks: a review. Surv Ophthalmol 2003, 48:295-313. An exhaustive overview that provides an excellent summary of the current knowledge.
30. Janz NK, Wren PA, Lichter PR, et al.: Quality of life in newly diagnosed glaucoma patients: The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study. Ophthalmology 2001, 108:887-897; discussion 898.
31. Pfeiffer N, Krieglstein GK, Wellek S: Knowledge about glaucoma in the unselected population: A German survey. J Glaucoma 2002, 11:458-463. Highlights problems confronting those who would attempt to increase public awareness of glaucoma in developed countries with a high standard of education.
32. Lau JTF, Lee V, Fan D, et al.: Knowledge about cataract, glaucoma, and age related macular degeneration in the Hong Kong Chinese population. Br J Ophthalmol 2002, 86:1080-1084. Similar to reference 31 except in a relatively affluent population within a developing country.
33. Babalola OE, Murdoch IE, Cousens S, et al.: Blindness: how to assess numbers and causes? Br J Ophthalmol 2003, 87:282-284. A thought-provoking paper that shows the small differences between several different methods of determination of blindness in a community. These methods differ in difficulty and expense, and offer reasonable alternatives to the gold standard of a population-based survey.
34. Quigley HA, Buhrmann RR, West SK, et al.: Long term results of glaucoma surgery among participants in an east African population survey. Br J Ophthalmol 2000, 84:860-864.
35. Gazzard G, Friedman DS, Devereux JG, et al.: A prospective ultrasound biomicroscopy evaluation of changes in anterior segment morphology after laser iridotomy in Asian eyes. Ophthalmology 2003, 110:630-638.
36. Grodum K, Heijl A, Bengtsson B: A comparison of glaucoma patients identified through mass screening and in routine clinical practice. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2002, 80:627-631. Provides data that show differences in severity of disease, IOP, and diagnoses between the two methods of glaucoma detection. The diagnostic criteria were the same as for the European Manifest Glaucoma Trial, which allows for generalization of the results.
37. Quigley HA, Park CK, Tracey PA, et al.: Community screening for eye disease by laypersons: the Hoffberger program. Am J Ophthalmol 2002, 133:386-392. Describes barriers to follow-up for patients identified as having ocular abnormalities after a screening examination, and worthwhile reading for anyone considering the utility of mass glaucoma screening.
38. Quigley HA, Friedman DS, Congdon NG: Possible mechanisms of primary angle-closure and malignant glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2003, 12:167-180. Provides an interesting hypothesis on the cause of ACG and aqueous misdirection that may lead to better methods of screening for ACG.
39. Tsai JC, McClure CA, Ramos SE, et al.: Compliance barriers in glaucoma: a systematic classification. J Glaucoma 2003, 12:393-398.