July 2018
Volume 59, Issue 9
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2018
Interplicata distance as part of ciliary body biometry to understand complications of plateau iris configuration
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Xiaofei MAN
    Ophthalomology, Xin Hua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
  • David M Reed
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, ANN ARBOR, Michigan, United States
  • Joanna Queen
    Ophthalmology, Houston Methodist, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Bernadete Ayres
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, ANN ARBOR, Michigan, United States
  • Sayoko Moroi
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, ANN ARBOR, Michigan, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Xiaofei MAN, None; David Reed, None; Joanna Queen, None; Bernadete Ayres, None; Sayoko Moroi, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2018, Vol.59, 5886. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Xiaofei MAN, David M Reed, Joanna Queen, Bernadete Ayres, Sayoko Moroi; Interplicata distance as part of ciliary body biometry to understand complications of plateau iris configuration. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018;59(9):5886. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : The mechanisms that cause non-pupillary block complications of plateau iris configuration (PIC) are not understood. We hypothesize that eyes with smaller inter-plicata distance are at risk for developing ‘in the bag’ uveitis-glaucoma-hyphema (UGH) syndrome with a single piece intraocular lens (IOL) implant

Methods : We performed a retrospective clinical study to compare high resolution ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) biometry parameters between PIC cases, primary angle closure (PAC) cases, and controls. This research was conducted in compliance with the “Declaration of Helsinki” and was approved by the institutional review board. A UBM imaging protocol was established to characterize anterior chamber depth (ACD), degree of angle opening (DOA), inter-plicata distance, sulcus-to-sulcus distance, ciliary body thickness, ciliary body area, and iris area. Using one eye of each subject, biometry parameters were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA

Results : Among 69 participants, there were 19 controls (6 males, mean age 73.2 + 4.5 years; 13 females, 60.7 + 18.5 years), 37 PIC cases (17 males, 59.7 + 11.3 years; 20 females, 55.2 + 15.0 years), and 13 PAC cases (4 males, 68.8 + 7.1 years; 9 females, 55.7 + 8.7 years). ACD was significantly smaller (p<0.0001) in PIC (2.60 + 0.56 mm) and PAC (2.00 + 0.95 mm) cases compared to controls (2.92 + 0.69 mm). DOA was significantly smaller (p<0.0001) in PIC to PAC cases compared to controls. Ciliary body thickness and area and iris area were comparable between the PIC and PAC cases and controls. The inter-plicata distance was significantly smaller (p=0.0015) in PIC (10.3 mm) to PAC (9.5 mm) cases compared to controls (11.0 mm). The sulcus-to-sulcus distance was significantly smaller (p=0.0143) in PIC (10.8 mm) to PAC (10.4 mm) cases compared to controls (11.4 mm)

Conclusions : Our results support the hypothesis that smaller inter-plicata distance explains UGH syndrome after uncomplicated cataract surgery due to the square edge haptics of a single piece IOL implant apposing the anteriorly rotated ciliary processes in PIC. UBM imaging provides this important ciliary body biometry that is not possible with anterior segment optical coherence tomography. This UBM-based biometry provides evidence to expand the iris sponge dynamic theory to advance our understanding of the non-pupillary block complications of PIC.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2018 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, April 29 - May 3, 2018.

 

Vectorized Angle Schematic 1

Vectorized Angle Schematic 1

 

Vectorized Angle Schematic 2

Vectorized Angle Schematic 2

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×