Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To compare the ocular biometric parameters between eyes with nanophthalmos and primary angle closure disease (PACD).</p> Methods <p>This was a cross-sectional, comparative hospital-based study. A total of 144 subjects (144 eyes) including 58 nanophthalmos patients and 86 primary angle closure disease (26 primary angle closure and 60 primary angle closure glaucoma) patients were included in the study. The parameters studied were central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), anterior chamber angle (ACA), angle opening distance (AOD500 &amp;AOD750), lens vault (LV), lens thickness (LT), axial length (AL), lens axial factor (LAF), relative lens position (RLP), and retinochoroido-scleral (RCS) thickness. All measurements were obtained prior to any laser or surgical intervention.</p> Results <p>The mean ± SD age was comparable without any statistically significant difference across all the groups (57.3 ± 11 years in the nanopthalmos group,56.7 ± 9.3 years in the PAC group,56.1 ± 9.2 in the PACG group).The median IOP was highest in PAC eyes (17mmHg) followed by PACG eyes (16mmHg) and nanophthalmic eyes (14mmHg) (<i>p</i> = 0.003). A significant difference was found in ACA among the three groups (<i>p</i> = 0.003), PAC and PACG eyes exhibited wider angles (median 26<sup>◦</sup> for each) whereas nanophthalmic eyes showed narrower angle (median 20.5<sup>◦</sup>). The median AL was highest in PACG eyes, intermediate in PAC eyes and shortest in nanophthalmic eyes (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Similarly, median ACD was shallower in nanophthalmic eyes compared with PAC and PACG eyes(<i>p</i> = 0.0001). RCS thickness was significantly greater in nanophthalmos (~ 2.0&#xa0;mm) compared to PAC and PACG (~ 1.5&#xa0;mm), highlighting its diagnostic value. No difference was found in LT(<i>p</i> = 0.879) or CCT(<i>p</i> = 0.434) between the groups. Nanophthalmic eyes had higher LV, greater RCS thickness, higher LAF and normal RLP, compared to PAC and PACG.</p> Conclusion <p>Nanophthalmos represents a more anatomically crowded and complex entity compared to PACD, characterized by critical biometric alterations that predispose to severe angle closure. Comprehensive biometric evaluation is essential for early diagnosis, risk stratification, and individualized management planning in these eyes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of ocular biometric parameters between nanophthalmos and primary angle closure disease: a cross-sectional comparative study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月25日

查看全文
  • Sharmila Rajendrababu,
  • Tos TJM Berendschot,
  • Vijayalakshmi A. Senthilkumar,
  • Udhayakumar Maghalakshmi,
  • Mythri Krishnamurthy Rao,
  • Balagiri Sundar,
  • Carroll Andre Bertha Webers

摘要

Purpose

To compare the ocular biometric parameters between eyes with nanophthalmos and primary angle closure disease (PACD).

Methods

This was a cross-sectional, comparative hospital-based study. A total of 144 subjects (144 eyes) including 58 nanophthalmos patients and 86 primary angle closure disease (26 primary angle closure and 60 primary angle closure glaucoma) patients were included in the study. The parameters studied were central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), anterior chamber angle (ACA), angle opening distance (AOD500 &AOD750), lens vault (LV), lens thickness (LT), axial length (AL), lens axial factor (LAF), relative lens position (RLP), and retinochoroido-scleral (RCS) thickness. All measurements were obtained prior to any laser or surgical intervention.

Results

The mean ± SD age was comparable without any statistically significant difference across all the groups (57.3 ± 11 years in the nanopthalmos group,56.7 ± 9.3 years in the PAC group,56.1 ± 9.2 in the PACG group).The median IOP was highest in PAC eyes (17mmHg) followed by PACG eyes (16mmHg) and nanophthalmic eyes (14mmHg) (p = 0.003). A significant difference was found in ACA among the three groups (p = 0.003), PAC and PACG eyes exhibited wider angles (median 26◦ for each) whereas nanophthalmic eyes showed narrower angle (median 20.5◦). The median AL was highest in PACG eyes, intermediate in PAC eyes and shortest in nanophthalmic eyes (p < 0.001). Similarly, median ACD was shallower in nanophthalmic eyes compared with PAC and PACG eyes(p = 0.0001). RCS thickness was significantly greater in nanophthalmos (~ 2.0 mm) compared to PAC and PACG (~ 1.5 mm), highlighting its diagnostic value. No difference was found in LT(p = 0.879) or CCT(p = 0.434) between the groups. Nanophthalmic eyes had higher LV, greater RCS thickness, higher LAF and normal RLP, compared to PAC and PACG.

Conclusion

Nanophthalmos represents a more anatomically crowded and complex entity compared to PACD, characterized by critical biometric alterations that predispose to severe angle closure. Comprehensive biometric evaluation is essential for early diagnosis, risk stratification, and individualized management planning in these eyes.