Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2018 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Cycloplasty: Analysis of Pupil Dynamics

David C Sousa, Nuno P Ferreira, Carlos Marques-Neves, Alix Somers, Evelien Vandewalle, Ingeborg Stalmans, Luís Abegão Pinto

Keywords : Intraocular pressure, Pupillometry, Ultrasound cystoplasty,Glaucoma

Citation Information : Sousa DC, Ferreira NP, Marques-Neves C, Somers A, Vandewalle E, Stalmans I, Pinto LA. High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Cycloplasty: Analysis of Pupil Dynamics. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2018; 12 (3):102-106.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1232

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-12-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: High-intensity focused ultrasound cystoplasty (UCP) aims to noninvasively and selectively target the ciliary body, thus lowering intraocular pressure (IOP). To be used on a large scale, the safety of the UCP procedure should be studied. Therefore, its effect on pupil behavior is important to better inform patients and to help physicians predict possible treatment side effects. This study aimed to evaluate to what extent UCP procedure (EyeOP-1®) affects pupil dynamics. Materials and methods: Consecutive glaucoma patients with uncontrolled IOP despite optimal medication scheduled for UCP treatment were recruited and followed for 6 months. Pupillometry (PlusoptiX® S04) was performed at baseline, and 1, 3 and 6 months after UCP procedure at scotopic and mesopic conditions. The difference between pupil diameter (PD) in both lighting conditions was calculated at the three follow-up visits. Demographic, clinical characteristics and specific ocular parameters (anterior chamber depth and volume, white-to-white measurement, axial length, phakic status) were registered. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 14.1. Results: Sixteen eyes of 16 patients with a mean age of 69 ± 11 years were included. Mean preoperative IOP and number of medications were 23.6 ± 3.0 mm Hg and 2.4 ± 1.3, respectively. Mean baseline scotopic and mesopic PD were 4.8 ± 0.8 mm and 4.4 ± 0.9 mm, respectively (difference = 0.38 ± 0.30 mm; range 0.1 to 1.2 mm). At month-1, the pupil diameter (PD) change between scotopic (4.6 ± 0.7 mm) and mesopic (4.5 ± 0.8 mm) conditions decreased to 0.03 ± 0.34 mm, p = 0.01. On the longer follow-up periods, however, the amplitude difference in PD compared to baseline was no longer significant (month-3: 0.28 ± 0.49 mm; month 6: 0.23 ± 0.41 mm; p > 0.05). At the end of follow-up, mean scotopic and mesopic PD were 4.7 ± 1.0 mm and 4.4 ± 0.9 mm, respectively. Conclusion and clinical significance: In the early postoperative period after UCP treatment, most patients present with a less light-reactive pupil, which seems to normalize with time.


PDF Share
  1. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):262-267.
  2. Tham Y-C, Li X, Wong TY, et al. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014; 121(11):2081-2090.
  3. Burr JM, Mowatt G, Hernández R, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for open angle glaucoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(41): iii-iv, ix-x, 1-190.
  4. Coleman AL, Miglior S. Risk Factors for Glaucoma Onset and Progression. Surv Ophthalmol. 2008;53(6 SUPPL.).
  5. King A, Azuara-Blanco A, Tuulonen A. Glaucoma. BMJ. 2013;346(jun11_1): f3518.
  6. Sousa DC, Leal I, Nascimento N, et al. Use of Ocular Hypotensive Medications in Portugal: PEM Study: A Crosssectional Nationwide Analysis. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(6):571-576.
  7. EGS. Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma. 4th ed. (European Glaucoma Society, ed.).; 2014.
  8. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al. Treatment outcomes in the tube versus trabeculectomy (TVT) study after five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(5).
  9. Yook E, Vinod K, Panarelli JF. Complications of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2018;29(2):147-154.
  10. Saheb H, Ahmed IIK. Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2012;23(2):96-104.
  11. Bovee CE, Pasquale LR. Evolving Surgical Interventions in the Treatment of Glaucoma. Semin Ophthalmol. 2017;32(1):91-95.
  12. Charrel T, Aptel F, Birer A, et al. Development of a Miniaturized HIFU Device for Glaucoma Treatment With Conformal Coagulation of the Ciliary Bodies. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2011;37(5):742-754.
  13. Aptel F, Denis P, Rouland J-F, et al. Multicenter clinical trial of high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment in glaucoma patients without previous filtering surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(5): e268-e277.
  14. De Gregorio A, Pedrotti E, Stevan G, et al. Safety and efficacy of multiple cyclocoagulation of ciliary bodies by high-intensity focused ultrasound in patients with glaucoma. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;255(12):2429-2435.
  15. Giannaccare G, Vagge A, Gizzi C, et al. High-intensity focused ultrasound treatment in patients with refractory glaucoma. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;255(3):599-605.
  16. Denis P, Aptel F, Rouland JF, et al. Cyclocoagulation of the ciliary bodies by high-intensity focused ultrasound: A 12-month multicenter study. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56(2):1089-1096.
  17. Aptel F, Charrel T, Palazzi X, et al. Histologic Effects of a New Device for High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Cyclocoagulation. Investig Opthalmology Vis Sci. 2010;51(10):5092.
  18. Aptel F, Charrel T, Lafon C, et al. Miniaturized High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Device in Patients with Glaucoma: A Clinical Pilot Study. Investig Opthalmology Vis Sci. 2011;52(12):8747.
  19. Giannaccare G, Vagge A, Sebastiani S, et al. Ultrasound Cyclo-Plasty in Patients with Glaucoma: 1-Year Results from a Multicentre Prospective Study. Ophthalmic Res. 2018.
  20. Carlson RV, Boyd KM, Webb DJ. The revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: Past, present and future. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;57(6):695-713.
  21. Urrets Zavalia AJ. Fixed, Dilated Pupil, Iris Atrophy and Secondary Glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1963;56:257-265.
  22. Park SH, Kim SY, Kim H Il, et al. Urrets-Zavalia syndrome following iris-claw phakic intraocular lens implantation. J Refract Surg. 2008;24(9):959-961.
  23. Maurino V, Allan BDS, Stevens JD, et al. Fixed dilated pupil (Urrets-Zavalia syndrome) after air/gas injection after deep lamellar keratoplasty for keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133(2):266-268.
  24. Chelnis JG, Sieminski SF, Reynolds JD. Urrets-Zavalia syndrome following goniotomy in a child. J AAPOS. 2012;16(3):312-313.
  25. Aralikatti AKV, Tomlins PJ, Shah S. Urrets-Zavalia syndrome following intracameral C3F8 injection for acute corneal hydrops [8]. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;36(2): 198-199.
  26. Klezlova A, Liebezeit S, Prokosch-Willing V, et al. Urrets- Zavalia Syndrome After Combined Trabeculotomy- Trabeculectomy Surgery. J Glaucoma. 2018;27(4): e80-e83.
  27. Vieira GM, Vieira FJ, Ritch R. Urrets-Zavalia Syndrome after Diode Laser Transscleral Cyclophotocoagulation. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(7):678-682.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.