Clinical Observation Of Laser Iridotomy And Peripheral Iridoplasty In Treatment Of Primary Acute Angle-closure Glaucoma Catabasis

Objective: The observed iridotomy and laser peripheral iridoplasty (LPI)treatment of primary acute angle-closure glaucoma in catabasis efficacy to explore thepros and cons of the two treatment methods.Methods: Select2011March to2012to June hospitalized angle-closure glaucomafor the first time acute seizures after catabasis of the patients were studiedretrospectively, a total of41cases of41eye,21eye iridotomy (treatment A group);20eye the laser peripheral iridoplasty (treatment group B).All the treatment of patientswith vision, slit lamp microscope anterior segment examination, disable the intraocularpressure-lowering drugs5days after the measurement of intraocular pressure, aqueoushumor smooth coefficient (C). Ease of a clear diagnosis based on history, symptomsand signs of acute primary angle-closure glaucoma. This line iridotomy and laserperipheral iridoplasty treatment, after treatment,2h,6h and3d IOP. The two groups ofpatients treated with preoperative and postoperative ultrasound biomicroscopy.SPSS19.0statistical software for statistical analysis, the measurement data areexpressed as mean±standard deviation (±s) using paired t test was used to compare theintraocular pressure (IOP) measurement results, P <0.05was considered statisticallysignificant. Count data conducted chi-square test, P <0.05was considered statisticallysignificant.Results:1.Ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) Check the central anterior chamberdepth: preoperative treatment group A,0.24±0.12, after0.76±0.38, treatment groupB preoperative0.25±0.15,0.52±0.26postoperatively paired t test, patients treatedwith their own preoperative and postoperative central anterior chamber depth, centralanterior chamber depth in the two groups of patients after treatment has deepened, thedifference was statistically significant (treatment group A, t=4.671,P=0.025; treatmentB group,t=4.021,P=0.036);Before treatment in group A compared with group B central anterior chamber depth, the difference was not statistically significant (t=1.761, P=0.095) after treatment in group A central anterior chamber depth deeper than the Bgroup, the difference was statistically significant t=3.833, P=0.046).2.Intraocular pressure (mmHg): Before treatment A group and treatment group BIOP was19.12±3.51,19.23±2.81, the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05);2h after treatment,6h,3d eye pressure, treatment of group A were:11.3±3.1,15.7±of3.5,14.91±5.87. The treatment group B were18.74±3.86,16.8±6.4,32.3±8.9.3d difference was statistically significant (P <0.05) after treatment3,Vision:A treatment group and treatment group B before treatment visiondifference was not statistically significant (P>0.05); Group A vision than thetreatment of B-group after treatment, the difference was statistically significant (P=0.032).4, postoperative complications anterior chamber inflammation treatment group A(5), treatment group B (15), transient intraocular pressure treatment in group A (1),the treatment of group B (14).Conclusions: The iridotomy and laser peripheral iridoplasty catabasis of primaryacute angle-closure glaucoma is valid, but the therapeutic effect of the iridotomy issuperior to laser peripheral iridoplasty.(1)The iridotomy can effectively relievepupillary block mechanism.(2)The iridotomy in the treatment of catabasis in acuteangle-closure glaucoma, the patient’s intraocular pressure is more stable.(3) Theiridotomy better treatment than laser peripheral iridoplasty.