Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Glaucoma in the Twenty-First Century

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover The Glaucoma Book

Abstract

Our concepts of the glaucomas evolve as our understanding of disease processes increases, technology advances, and our treatment strategies become more sophisticated. Technology has always corralled our definitions and our understanding of the glaucomas; the challenge of this new century is to focus our progress for the direct benefit of our patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Personal communication

References

  1. Shaffer RN. The centennial history of glaucoma (1896-1996), American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 1996;103(8 Suppl):S40-S50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shaffer RN. Fifty years in ophthalmology. Surv Ophthalmol. 1990;35(3):236–239.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nathan J. Hippocrates to Duke-Elder: an overview of the history of glaucoma. Clin Exp Optom. 2000;83(3):116–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Frezzotti R. The glaucoma mystery from ancient times to the 21st century, The glaucoma mystery: ancient concepts. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl 2000;(232):14–18

    Google Scholar 

  5. Keeler R. Antique ophthalmic instruments and books: the Royal College Museum. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(7):712–714.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Andersen SR. The history of the Ophthalmological Society of Copenhagen 1900-1950. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl. 2002;234:6–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dellaporta A. Historical notes on gonioscopy. Surv Ophthalmol. 1975;20(2):137–149.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ritch R, Caronia RM, eds, Classic Papers in Glaucoma, Kugler Publications, The Netherlands, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mitchell P, Smith W, Attebo K, Healey PR. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 1996;103(10):1661–1669.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wensor MD, McCarty CA, Stanislavsky YL, et al. The prevalence of glaucoma in the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(4):733–739.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Varma R, Ying-Lai M, Francis BA, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension in Latinos: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(8):1439–1448.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sakata K, Sakata LM, Sakata VM, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma in a South brazilian population: Projeto Glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(11):4974–4979.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wong EY, Keeffe JE, Rait JL, et al. Detection of undiagnosed glaucoma by eye health professionals. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(8):1508–1514.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. WHO Chron. 1968;22:473.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wilson MR. The myth of “21”. J Glaucoma. 1997;6(2):75–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Leydhecker W, Akiyama K, Neumann HG. Intraocular pressure in normal human eyes. Klin Monatsblatter Augenheilkd Augenarztl Fortbild. 1958;133(5):662–670.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hollows FC, Graham PA. Intra-ocular pressure, glaucoma, and glaucoma suspects in a defined population. Br J Ophthalmol. 1966;50(10):570–586.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eddy DM, Sanders LE, Eddy JF. The value of screening for glaucoma with tonometry. Surv Ophthalmol. 1983;28(3):194–205.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Eddy DM, Billings J. The quality of medical evidence: implications for quality of care. Health Aff (Millwood). 1988;7(1):19–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. The AGIS Investigators. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130(4):429–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Klein BE, Klein R, Sponsel WE, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 1992;99(10):1499–1504.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Feiner L, Piltz-Seymour JR. Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: a summary of results to date. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2003;14(2):106–111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;126(4):487–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Miglior S, Zeyen T, Pfeiffer N, et al. Results of the European Glaucoma Prevention Study. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(3):366–375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(10):1268–1279.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Five-year follow-up of the Fluorouracil Filtering Surgery Study. The Fluorouracil Filtering Surgery Study Group. Am J Ophthalmol 1996;121(4):349–366

    Google Scholar 

  27. The Glaucoma Laser Trial (GLT) and glaucoma laser trial follow-up study: 7. Results. Glaucoma Laser Trial Research Group. Am J Ophthalmol 1995;120(6):718–731

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120(6):714-720; discussion 829–830

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Friedman DS, Jampel HD, Munoz B, West SK. The prevalence of open-angle glaucoma among blacks and whites 73 years and older: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation Glaucoma Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124(11):1625–1630.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Burr JM, Mowatt G, Hernandez 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

    Google Scholar 

  31. Fleming C, Whitlock E, Biel T, Smit B. Primary care screening for ocular hypertension and primary open-angle glaucoma: Evidence Synthesis. No. 34. Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, US Preventative Services Task Force; 2005. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf05/glaucoma/glaucsyn.pdf. Accessed June 2008

  32. Weinreb RN, Healey PR and Topouzis Glaucoma Screening, WGA consensus series 5, Kugler Publications, 2008 The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  33. Grodum K, Heijl A, Bengtsson B. A comparison of glaucoma patients identified through mass screening and in routine clinical practice. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2002;80(6):627–631.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. South East Asia Glaucoma Interest Group Guidlines, published on-line at www.seagig.org

  35. Danesh-Meyer HV, Deva NC, Slight C, et al. What do people with glaucoma know about their condition? A comparative cross-sectional incidence and prevalence survey. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2008;36(1):13–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Odberg T, Jakobsen JE, Hultgren SJ, Halseide R. The impact of glaucoma on the quality of life of patients in Norway. I. Results from a self-administered questionnaire. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2001;79(2):116–120.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. McNaught AI, Allen JG, Healey DL, et al. Accuracy and implications of a reported family history of glaucoma: experience from the Glaucoma Inheritance Study in Tasmania. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(7):900–904.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Green CM, Kearns LS, Wu J, et al. How significant is a family history of glaucoma? Experience from the Glaucoma Inheritance Study in Tasmania. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2007;35(9):793–799.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Marx J. Genetics. High-risk glaucoma gene found in Nordic studies. Science. 2007;317(5839):735.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Asrani S, Zeimer R, Wilensky J, et al. Large diurnal fluctuations in intraocular pressure are an independent risk factor in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2000;9(2):134–142.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Danesh-Meyer HV, Niederer R, Gaskin BJ, Gamble G. Comparison of the Proview pressure phosphene tonometer performed by the patient and examiner with the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2004;32(1):29–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gunvant P, Lievens CW, Newman JM 3rd, et al. Evaluation of some factors affecting the agreement between the Proview Eye Pressure Monitor and the Goldmann applanation tonometer measurements. Clin Exp Optom. 2007;90(4):290–295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Abraham LM, Epasinghe NC, Selva D, Casson R. Comparison of the ICare rebound tonometer with the Goldmann applanation tonometer by experienced and inexperienced tonometrists. Eye. 2008;22(4):503–506.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Susanna R Jr, Vessani RM, Sakata L, et al. The relation between intraocular pressure peak in the water drinking test and visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(10):1298–1301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Danesh-Meyer HV, Papchenko T, Tan YW, Gamble GD. Medically controlled glaucoma patients show greater increase in intraocular pressure than surgically controlled patients with the water drinking test. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(9):1566–1570.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kumar RS, de Guzman MH, Ong PY, Goldberg I. Does peak intraocular pressure measured by water drinking test reflect peak circadian levels? A pilot study. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2008;36(4):312–315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Schmidt K. Untersuchungen über Kapillarendothelstörungen bei Glaukoma simplex. Arch Augenheilkd 1928(98):569–581

    Google Scholar 

  48. Leydhecker W. The water-drinking test. Br J Ophthalmol. 1950;34(8):457–479.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Pitchon E, Leonardi M, Renaud P, et al. First in vivo human measure of the intraocular pressure fluctuation and ocular pulsation by a wireless soft contact lens sensor. Abstracts of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2008 Annual Meeting; April 27-May 1, 2008; Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Abstract 687, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Downs J, Burgoyne CF, Liang Y, Sallee VL. A new implantable system for telemetric IOP monitoring in nonhuman primates (NHP). Program and abstracts of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2008 Annual Meeting. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Abstract 2043, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  51. Aebersold J, Jackson D, Crain M, et al. Development of an implantable, RFID-based intraocular pressure sensing system for glaucoma patients. Program and abstracts of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2008 Annual Meeting. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Abstract 688, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  52. Weinreb RN, Friedman DS, Fechtner RD, et al. Risk assessment in the management of patients with ocular hypertension. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138(3):458–467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120(6):701-713; discussion 829–830

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goni FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92(4):569–573.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Spry PG, Johnson CA. Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Surv Ophthalmol. 2002;47(2):158–173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Aulhorn E, Karmeyer H. Frequency distribution in early glaucomatous visual field defects. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser. 1977;14:75–83.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Hodapp E, Parrish RI, Anderson D. Clinical decisions in glaucoma, 52-61 ed. St. Louis, MO: CV Mosby; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Mills RP, Budenz DL, Lee PP, et al. Categorizing the stage of glaucoma from pre-diagnosis to end-stage disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141(1):24–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Brusini P, Filacorda S. Enhanced glaucoma staging system (GSS 2) for classifying functional damage in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2006;15(1):40–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Katz J. Scoring systems for measuring progression of visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment. Ophthalmology. 1999;106(2):391–395.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. A visual field index for calculation of glaucoma rate of progression. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145(2):343–353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Peridata. Available at: http://www.peridata.org. Accessed September 4, 2008

  63. Artes PH, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Visual field progression in glaucoma: total versus pattern deviation analyses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(12):4600–4606.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Owen VM, Crabb DP, White ET, et al. Glaucoma and fitness to drive: using binocular visual fields to predict a milestone to blindness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(6):2449–2455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, Viswanathan AC. A practical approach to measuring the visual field component of fitness to drive. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(9):1191–1196.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Ventura LM, Sorokac N. De Los Santos R, et al. The relationship between retinal ganglion cell function and retinal nerve fiber thickness in early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(9):3904–3911.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Ventura LM, Porciatti V. Restoration of retinal ganglion cell function in early glaucoma after intraocular pressure reduction: a pilot study. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(1):20–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Cordeiro MF, Guo L, Luong V, et al. Real-time imaging of single nerve cell apoptosis in retinal neurodegeneration. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101(36):13352–13356.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show?term=xalatan&rank=35 2008.

  70. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00451152?term=anecortave&rank=18;2008

  71. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al. Treatment outcomes in the tube versus trabeculectomy study after one year of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(1):9–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Spaeth G, Walt J, Keener J. Evaluation of quality of life for patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141(1 Suppl):S3-S14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Nelson P, Aspinall P, Papasouliotis O, et al. Quality of life in glaucoma and its relationship with visual function. J Glaucoma. 2003;12(2):139–150.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Banes MJ, Culham LE, Bunce C, et al. Agreement between optometrists and ophthalmologists on clinical management decisions for patients with glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(5):579–585.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Gray SF, Spry PG, Brookes ST, et al. The Bristol shared care glaucoma study: outcome at follow up at 2 years. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84(5):456–463.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Glaucoma Department, Sydney Eye Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Ridia Lim MB BS, MPH, FRANZCO

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Eye Associates, Sydney Eye Hospital, University of Sydney, Floor 4, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Ivan Goldberg MBBS, FRANZCO, FRACS

Authors
  1. Ridia Lim MB BS, MPH, FRANZCO
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivan Goldberg MBBS, FRANZCO, FRACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. 2889 10th Avenue, N., Palm Springs, 33461, USA

    Paul N. Schacknow

  2. Casey Eye Institute, Dept. Ophthalmology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, SW. Terwilliger Blvd. 3375, Portland, 97201-4197, USA

    John R. Samples

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lim, R., Goldberg, I. (2010). Glaucoma in the Twenty-First Century. In: Schacknow, P., Samples, J. (eds) The Glaucoma Book. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-76700-0_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-76700-0_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-76699-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-76700-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation