Characteristic Manifestations regarding Ultrasound Biomicroscopy Morphological Data in the Diagnosis of Acute Angle Closure Secondary to Lens Subluxation

الملخص EN

Purpose.

To investigate the mechanisms underlying the occurrence of acute angle closure (AAC) and to further explore the sensitive indicators for clinical diagnosis of acute angle closure secondary to lens subluxation (AACSLS) through qualitative and quantitative analysis of ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) imaging features of eyes with AAC to provide a theoretical basis for the selection of treatment schemes.

Methods.

A retrospective analysis was conducted from 2013 to 2018 on 160 eyes (160 patients) with uniocular acute angle closure crisis (AACC) complicated by cataract.

The case group consisted of 29 eyes (29 patients) with lens subluxation and the control group consisted of 131 eyes (131 patients) without lens subluxation.

Before the operation, computer optometry, best corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure, slit lamp, gonioscopy, preset lens, A-mode ultrasonography, and UBM were performed.

All the enrolled subjects underwent cataract surgery with or without other operations.

The pupil was fully dilated, and the position of the lens was recorded before the operation.

The zonular rupture and lens subluxation were further confirmed during operation.

SPSS version 20.0 was used to analyze UBM imaging data from the lens subluxation group and non-lens subluxation group.

Results.

The iris span (IS) value in the whole quadrant of the lens subluxation group was significantly higher than that of the non-lens subluxation group (P=0.033, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.31).

The iris lens angle (ILA) in the lens subluxation group was significantly lower than that in the non-lens subluxation group in the upper, lower, nasal, temporal, and whole quadrants (P<0.001, 95%CI -8.79 to -2.78; P=0.001, 95%CI -8.36 to -2.27; P<0.001, 95%CI -9.85 to -4.98; P=0.015, 95%CI -6.67 to -0.72; P<0.001, 95%CI -8.74 to -5.83, respectively).

However, the ILA of the maximum difference among the four quadrants in the lens subluxation group was significantly higher than that in the non-lens subluxation group (P<0.001, 95%CI 4.74 to 9.86).

The ILA and iris lens contact distance (ILCD) showed significant negative correlations in both the lens subluxation group and non-lens subluxation group (Y=20.984-7.251X, R=0.520, and P<0.001; Y=19.923-3.491X, R=0.256, and P<0.001, respectively).

The risk ratio of lens subluxation in exposed eyes with ILA=0 in one quadrant at least was significantly higher than that in nonexposed eyes without ILA=0 in all quadrants (X2=87.859, P<0.001, and odds ratio (OR)=79.200, 95% CI 23.063 to 271.983).

The risk ratio of zonular rupture in exposed quadrants with ILA=0 was significantly lower than that in nonexposed eyes without ILA=0 (X2=33.884, P<0.001, OR=0.122, and 95% CI 0.053 to 0.278).

The risk ratio of zonular rupture in exposed quadrants with nonforward convexity of iris was significantly lower than that in nonexposed quadrants with forward convexity of iris (X2=6.413, P=0.011, and OR=0.381; 95% CI 0.176 to 0.825).

Conclusions.

ILA=0 and nonforward convexity of iris as UBM sensitive and characteristic indicators for screening lens subluxation and zonular rupture can provide new ideas and hints for clinical diagnosis of acute angle closure secondary to lens subluxation.