Glaucoma laboratory findings

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Glaucoma Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Glaucoma from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Screening

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

Diagnostic study of choice

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

CT

MRI

Ultrasound

Other Imaging Findings

Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Glaucoma laboratory findings On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Glaucoma laboratory findings

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Glaucoma laboratory findings

CDC on Glaucoma laboratory findings

Glaucoma laboratory findings in the news

Blogs on Glaucoma laboratory findings

Directions to Hospitals Treating Glaucoma

Risk calculators and risk factors for Glaucoma laboratory findings

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1] Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Rohan Bir Singh, M.B.B.S.[2]

Overview

Laboratory Findings

A comprehensive eye exam is necessary to determine whether a patient has glaucoma. Checking the intraocular pressure alone (tonometry) is not enough to diagnose glaucoma because eye pressure changes. Furthermore, pressure in the eye is normal in about 25% of people with glaucoma (normal-tension glaucoma). There are other problems that cause optic nerve damage.

Structural Tests

For the latter three the quantified results are then statistically compared to age-matched population norms, and to subsequent scans of the same patient over time.

Functional Tests

  • Automated perimetry: Each area in the patient's visual field is psychometrically tested to see how bright a given spot in that field must be for the patient to detect it. Thus a map can be made of the patient's sensitivity over their visual field and statistically compared to age-matched population norms and to subsequent tests of the same patient over time. Obviously the reliance on patients' response and attention is a factor in itself, one disadvantage of such subjective testing. The Medmont M700 is an example of standard automated perimetry, using a white spot over a white background. Newer instruments such as the Humphrey Matrix FDT use frequency-doubling technology to assess the function of a smaller subset of retinal cells, revealing glaucomatous visual field damage somewhat earlier than with standard perimetry.[6][7][8][9][10]
  • Visually-evoked potential: to analyse the electrical activity of the visual cortex, assessing the function of the visual system "upstream" from the measured areas on the visual cortex. This has the advantage of assessing visual function without relying on subjective patient input. The EPIC-4000 is one example.

References

  1. Herndon L, Weizer J, Stinnett S (2004) Central Corneal Thickness as a Risk Factor for Advanced Glaucoma Damage. Arch Ophthalmol 122(1):17-21
  2. Jonas J, Stroux A, Velten I, Juenemann A, Martus P, Budde W (2005) Central Corneal Thickness Correlated with Glaucoma Damage and Rate of Progression. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 46:1269-1274
  3. Medeiros F, Sample P, Zangwill L, Bowd C, Aihara M, Weinreb R (2003) Corneal thickness as a risk factor for visual field loss in patients with preperimetric glaucomatous optic neuropathy. American Journal of Ophthalmology 136(5):805-813
  4. Doughty M, Zaman M (2000) Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol 44(5):367-408
  5. Shah S, Chatterjee A, Mathai M, Kelly S, Kwartz J, Henson D, McLeod D (1999) Relationship between corneal thickness and measured intraocular pressure in a general ophthalmology clinic. Ophthalmology 106(11):2154-60
  6. Ferreras A, Polo V, Larrosa J, Pablo L, Pajarin A, Pueyo V, Honrubia F (2007) Can frequency-doubling technology and short-wavelength automated perimetries detect visual field defects before standard automated perimetry in patients with preperimetric glaucoma? J Glaucoma 16(4):372-83
  7. Wadood A, Azuara-Blanco A, Aspinall P, Taguri A, King A (2002) Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, and Humphrey Swedish interactive threshold algorithm-fast perimetry in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 133(3):327-32
  8. Kalaboukhova L, Lindblom B (2003) Frequency doubling technology and high-pass resolution perimetry in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 81(3):247-52
  9. Akiko N, Kyoko M, Mikio N, Naoyuki T, Tomoko U, Hiroshi O, Kiichiro Y (2004) Ability of Frequency Doubling Technology to Detect Early Glaucomatous Visual Field Changes. Folia Ophthalmologica Japonica 55(1):22-26
  10. Cello K, Nelson-Quigg J, Johnson C (2000) Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 129(3):314-22

Template:WH Template:WS