Abstract

Research Article

Comparison of Visual Field Progression in Patients with Primary Open Angle Glaucoma and Pseudo Exfoliative Glaucoma

Asfa Khaleel and Madhavi Gupta SV

Published: 09 May, 2025 | Volume 9 - Issue 1 | Pages: 004-010

Objective: Comparison of visual field progression in patients with Primary Open-angle Glaucoma (POAG) and Pseudo Exfoliative Glaucoma (PEXG).
Methods and materials: This is a 2-year longitudinal prospective study including 60 glaucomatous eyes with VA CF ≥ 3 m, IOP ≥ 20 mmHg, CDR ≥ 0.6 and those with Shaffer’s grade 3 or above were categorized as POAG along with signs of Pseudo exfoliative material as PEXG.
Patients on anti-glaucoma medications and those who have undergone cataract and glaucoma surgeries are also included in this study. 24-2 visual field test was performed using Humphrey Field Analyzer & the progression was assessed based on 3 parameters- Mean Deviation (MD), Visual Field Index (VFI) & Guided Progression Analysis (GPA).
Results: The difference in MD & VFI was higher in PEXG (-5.77 dB) (10.88%) than in POAG (-1.56 dB) (7.17%) respectively & was significant statistically (t - test, p = < 0.001). The GPA showed fast progression in 53.30% of cases in PEXG, 13.30% in POAG (Chi-square, p = < 0.001) about 63.30% of POAG & 46.70% of PEXG showed slow- moderate progression, but 23.30% of POAG subjects had no progression.
Conclusion: Compared to POAG, the study showed that PEXG had frequent & faster visual field worsening. Therefore, PEXG patients require more stringent management & treatment than those with POAG.

Read Full Article HTML DOI: 10.29328/journal.ijceo.1001060 Cite this Article Read Full Article PDF

Keywords:

Primary open angle glaucoma; Pseudo exfoliative glaucoma; Visual field progression; Visual field index; Mean deviation; Guided progression analysis; Humphrey field analyzer

References

  1. Quigley HA. Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80(5):389-93. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.80.5.389
  2. Shaffer RN, Becker B. Diagnosis and therapy of the glaucomas. 8th ed. San Francisco: Elsevier; 1961.
  3. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):262-7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2005.081224
  4. Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng CY. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(11):2081-90. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013
  5. Shields MB, Ritch R, Krupin T. Classification of the glaucomas. St. Louis: Mosby; 1996.
  6. Vijaya L, George R, Paul PG, Baskaran M, Arvind H, Raju P, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma in a rural south Indian population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(12):4461-7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.04-1529
  7. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Primary open-angle glaucoma: Preferred practice pattern. San Francisco: The Academy; 2005.
  8. Brandt JD. Corneal thickness in glaucoma screening, diagnosis, and management. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004;15(2):85-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/00055735-200404000-00004
  9. Ayala M. Comparison of visual field progression in newly diagnosed primary open-angle and exfoliation glaucoma patients in Sweden. BMC Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2020;20(1):322. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-020-01592-w
  10. Tarkkanen AHA, Kivelä TT. Comparison of primary open-angle glaucoma and exfoliation glaucoma at diagnosis. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2015;25(2):137-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000516
  11. Tielsch JM, Sommer A, Katz J, Royall RM, Quigley HA, Javitt J. Racial variations in the prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma. The Baltimore Eye Survey. JAMA. 1991;266(3):369-74. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2056646/
  12. Klein BE, Klein R, Sponsel WE, Franke T, Cantor LB, Martone J, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 1992;99(10):1499-504. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(92)31774-9
  13. Leibowitz HM, Krueger DE, Maunder LR, Milton RC, Kini MM, Kahn HA, et al. The Framingham Eye Study monograph: An ophthalmological and epidemiological study of cataract, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration, and visual acuity in a general population of 2631 adults, 1973–1975. Surv Ophthalmol. 1980;24(Suppl):335-610. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7444756/
  14. Mitchell P, Smith W, Attebo K, Healey PR. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 1996;103(10):1661-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(96)30449-1
  15. Åström S, Stenlund H, Lindén C. Incidence and prevalence of pseudoexfoliations and open-angle glaucoma in northern Sweden: II. Results after 21 years of follow-up. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;85(8):832-7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0420.2007.00980.x
  16. Musch DC, Shimizu T, Niziol LM, Gillespie BW, Cashwell LF, Lichter PR. Clinical characteristics of newly diagnosed primary, pigmentary, and pseudoexfoliative open-angle glaucoma in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(9):1180-4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-301820
  17. Puska PM. Unilateral exfoliation syndrome: conversion to bilateral exfoliation and to glaucoma: a prospective 10-year follow-up study. J Glaucoma. 2002;11(6):517-24. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/00061198-200212000-00012
  18. Hammer T, Schlotzer-Schrehardt U, Naumann GO. Unilateral or asymmetric pseudoexfoliation syndrome? An ultrastructural study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(7):1023-31. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.119.7.1023
  19. Ahrlich KG, De Moraes CG, Teng CC, Prata TS, Tello C, Ritch R, et al. Visual field progression differences between normal-tension and exfoliative high-tension glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(3):1458-63. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.09-3806
  20. Kocaturk T, Bekmez S, Katranci M, Cakmak H, Dayanir V. Long term results of visual field progression analysis in open angle glaucoma patients under treatment. Open Ophthalmol J. 2015;9:116-20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2174/1874364101509010116
  21. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Dong L, Yang Z; EMGT Group. Predictors of long-term progression in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(11):1965-72. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.016
  22. Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Leske MC. Natural history of open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(12):2271-6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.06.042
  23. Kim JH, Rabiolo A, Morales E, Yu F, Afifi AA, Nouri-Mahdavi K, et al. Risk factors for fast visual field progression in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;207:268-78. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2019.06.019
  24. De Moraes CG, Prata TS, Tello C, Ritch R, Liebmann JM. Glaucoma with early visual field loss affecting both hemifields and the risk of disease progression. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(9):1129-34. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.165
  25. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hussein M; Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Measuring visual field progression in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2003;81(3):286-93. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0420.2003.00070.x
  26. Bengtsson B, Lindgren A, Heijl A, Lindgren G, Asman P, Patella M. Perimetric probability maps to separate change caused by glaucoma from that caused by cataract. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75(2):184-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0420.1997.tb00121.x
  27. Arnalich-Montiel F, Casas-Llera P, Munoz-Negrete FJ, Rebolleda G. Performance of glaucoma progression analysis software in a glaucoma population. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;247(3):391-7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-008-0986-1
  28. Wilkins M, Fitzke F, Khaw P. Pointwise linear progression criteria and the detection of visual field change in a glaucoma trial. Eye (Lond). 2006;20(1):98-106. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6701781

Figures:

Figure 1

Figure 1

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 1

Figure 3

Figure 1

Figure 4

Figure 1

Figure 5

Similar Articles

Recently Viewed

Read More

Most Viewed

Read More

Help ?