PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 4066161

Pseudophakic glaucoma.

Abstract

Pseudophakia by itself does not cause ocular hypertension. Pseudophakic glaucoma should be defined as glaucoma that would not be present in an eye if it were not pseudophakic. Ocular hypertension was noted in 15 (9%) of 166 pseudophakic eyes. Only 5 eyes (3%) had ocular hypertension requiring treatment. Three of these eyes (1.8%) had permanent ocular hypertension resulting in chronic pseudophakic glaucoma. This study shows that pseudophakic glaucoma is no more frequent than aphakic glaucoma. Secondary glaucoma in pseudophakic eyes is not always related to the presence of the lens. Pupillary block glaucoma and UGH syndrome are directly related to the lens. Secondary glaucoma by ghost cells and by pigment-dispersion are also in some cases directly related to the lens.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R van Oye, O Gelisken. 1985. Pseudophakic glaucoma.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00136496

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Factors influencing neurological care].

OBJECTIVE: To analyse certain factors which contribute to the existing backlog in specialised neurological care, such as: where the patient was referred from, the reason for the appointment, tests carried out and the final diagnosis. We used a random sample of patients. DESIGN: Retrospective study of patients referred from Primary Care, who were attended as out-patients in the Neurology clinic during 1991. SITE. Health Area 2 of the Autonomous Community of Madrid. MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The average number of patients per doctor sent from each one of the seven Centres studied was 7.69, with outliers of between 2 and 21, with a standard deviation of 3.95 and a rate of 51.31%. The proportion of new patients to patients having follow-up checks was 2 to 3, respectively. The differences between the number of patients sent from the different centres were found in the less serious pathologies. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that the criteria used by Primary Care professionals and specialists should be strengthened and unified. This was one of the factors which weighed most on the quality and backlog of care.

Follow-Up Studies