Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Angle Closure Glaucoma—Update on Treatment Paradigms

  • Diagnosis and Monitoring of Glaucoma (J Kammer, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Ophthalmology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review aims to provide an update on therapeutic techniques and a recommended approach to angle closure management.

Recent Findings

The concept of angle closure management is based on reversing the angle closure process while taking into account the disease’s etiology, clinical presentation, and staging of the disease. Recent data show that lens extraction, whether for visually significant cataract or clear lens, is becoming more common in angle closure management. In addition, traditional management to prevent occludable angle eyes from progressing to a more advanced stage of primary angle closure disease may not be necessary in all cases. A variety of new glaucoma therapies have been shown to be effective and may play a significant role in angle closure management.

Summary

An initial step in angle closure management is to widen the angle. The procedures chosen are determined by the underlying mechanism of angle closure. Lens extraction is one of the most effective methods to widen the angle. Procedures that increase aqueous outflow or decrease aqueous inflow are required for eyes with low target IOP or synechial angle closure.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):262–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2005.081224.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. •• Gedde SJ, Chen PP, Muir KW, Vinod K, Lind JT, Wright MM, et al. Primary angle-closure disease preferred practice pattern(R). Ophthalmology. 2021;128(1):P30–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.10.021. Of importance guideline in managing primary angle closure disease.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. •• European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma. 5th Edition. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;105(Suppl 1):1–169. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-egsguidelines. Of importance guideline in glaucoma management.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chansangpetch S, Rojanapongpun P, Lin SC. Anterior segment imaging for angle closure. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;188:xvi–xxix. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2018.01.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Moghimi S, Zandvakil N, Vahedian Z, Mohammadi M, Fakhraie G, Coleman AL, et al. Acute angle closure: qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the anterior segment using anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;42(7):615–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.12285.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Shabana N, Aquino MC, See J, Ce Z, Tan AM, Nolan WP, et al. Quantitative evaluation of anterior chamber parameters using anterior segment optical coherence tomography in primary angle closure mechanisms. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;40(8):792–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2012.02805.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dada T, Rathi A, Angmo D, Agarwal T, Vanathi M, Khokhar SK, et al. Clinical outcomes of clear lens extraction in eyes with primary angle closure. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(7):1470–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.10.029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Masis M, Mineault PJ, Phan E, Lin SC. The role of phacoemulsification in glaucoma therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surv Ophthalmol. 2018;63(5):700–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2017.08.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tarongoy P, Ho CL, Walton DS. Angle-closure glaucoma: the role of the lens in the pathogenesis, prevention, and treatment. Surv Ophthalmol. 2009;54(2):211–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2008.12.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Azuara-Blanco A, Burr J, Ramsay C, Cooper D, Foster PJ, Friedman DS, et al. Effectiveness of early lens extraction for the treatment of primary angle-closure glaucoma (EAGLE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10052):1389–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30956-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. • Mitchell WG, Azuara-Blanco A, Foster PJ, Halawa O, Burr J, Ramsay CR, et al. Predictors of long-term intraocular pressure control after lens extraction in primary angle closure glaucoma: results from the EAGLE trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-319765. A secondary analysis of the EAGLE data showing the benefits of initial clear lens extraction over traditional laser peripheral iridotomy and the baseline predictors of treatment response.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Francis BA, Pouw A, Jenkins D, Babic K, Vakili G, Tan J, et al. Endoscopic cycloplasty (ECPL) and lens extraction in the treatment of severe plateau iris syndrome. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(3):e128–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lu M, Chuang AZ, Feldman RM. Comparing the effect of lens extraction with endocycloplasty to lens extraction alone in eyes with plateau iris configuration: Pilot Study. J Glaucoma. 2021;30(5):436–43. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001793.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wright C, Tawfik MA, Waisbourd M, Katz LJ. Primary angle-closure glaucoma: an update. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(3):217–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.12784.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Narayanaswamy A, Leung CK, Istiantoro DV, Perera SA, Ho CL, Nongpiur ME, et al. Efficacy of selective laser trabeculoplasty in primary angle-closure glaucoma: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(2):206–12. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.4893.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Raj S, Tigari B, Faisal TT, Gautam N, Kaushik S, Ichhpujani P, et al. Efficacy of selective laser trabeculoplasty in primary angle closure disease. Eye (Lond). 2018;32(11):1710–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-018-0165-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ali Aljasim L, Owaidhah O, Edward DP. Selective laser trabeculoplasty in primary angle-closure glaucoma after laser peripheral iridotomy: a case-control study. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(3):e253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Geffen N, Ofir S, Belkin A, Segev F, Barkana Y, Kaplan Messas A, et al. Transscleral selective laser trabeculoplasty without a gonioscopy lens. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(3):201–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000464.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Garg A, Gazzard G. Selective laser trabeculoplasty: past, present, and future. Eye (Lond). 2018;32(5):863–76. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2017.273.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Islam MN. Filtration surgery and glaucoma drainage devices in PACG. In: Tham CCY, editor. Primary angle closure glaucoma (PACG): a logical approach in management. Singapore: Springer; 2021. p. 87.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Fox AR, Alward WLM, Fingert JH. Aqueous misdirection after trabeculectomy in a Down syndrome patient with angle-closure glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2021;30(5):e269–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/ijg.0000000000001831.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tham CCY, Kwong YYY, Lai JSM, Lam DSC, Ritch R. Surgical management of chronic angle-closure glaucoma. Expert Rev Ophthalmol. 2007;2(2):185–90. https://doi.org/10.1586/17469899.2.2.185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lai JS, Tham CC, Lam DS. Incisional surgery for angle closure glaucoma. Semin Ophthalmol. 2002;17(2):92–9. https://doi.org/10.1076/soph.17.2.92.14716.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chen YH, Lu DW, Cheng JH, Chen JT, Chen CL. Trabeculectomy in patients with primary angle-closure glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2009;18(9):679–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0b013e31819c4a07.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Aung T, Tow SL, Yap EY, Chan SP, Seah SK. Trabeculectomy for acute primary angle closure. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(7):1298–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00137-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Romero P, Hirunpatravong P, Alizadeh R, Kim EA, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Morales E, et al. Trabeculectomy with mitomycin-C: outcomes and risk factors for failure in primary angle-closure glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2018;27(2):101–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000842.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Deokule SP, Molteno AC, Bevin TH, Herbison P. Long-term results of Molteno implant insertion in cases of chronic angle closure glaucoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007;35(6):514–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2007.01530.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tan AN, Webers CA, Berendschot TT, de Brabander J, de Witte PM, Nuijts RM, et al. Corneal endothelial cell loss after Baerveldt glaucoma drainage device implantation in the anterior chamber. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017;95(1):91–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.13161.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Alobaida IA, Malik R, Ahmad S. Comparison of surgical outcomes between sulcus and anterior chamber implanted glaucoma drainage devices. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2020;34(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/1319-4534.301298.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Chansangpetch S, Lau K, Perez CI, Nguyen N, Porco TC, Lin SC. Efficacy of cataract surgery with trabecular microbypass stent implantation in combined-mechanism angle closure glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;195:191–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2018.08.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sng CCA, Chew PTK, Htoon HM, Lun K, Jeyabal P, Ang M. Case series of combined XEN implantation and phacoemulsification in Chinese eyes: one-year outcomes. Adv Ther. 2019;36(12):3519–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-019-01127-w.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Asanad S, Kalarn S, Kaleem MA. Postoperative complications of ab-interno XEN implantation in primary angle closure glaucoma. Am J Clin Exp Immunol. 2021;10(1):44–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Le K, Saheb H. iStent trabecular micro-bypass stent for open-angle glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:1937–45. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S45920.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Beardsley R, Law SK, Caprioli J, Coleman AL, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hubschman JP, et al. Comparison of outcomes between endoscopic and transcleral cyclophotocoagulation. Vision (Basel). 2017;1(4):24. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision1040024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Francis BA, Flowers B, Dastiridou A, Yelenskiy A, Chopra V, Alvarado JA. Endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation and other cyclodestructive methods: histopathologic comparison of in vivo treatment in humans and monkeys. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2019;2(6):413–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogla.2019.08.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ishida K. Update on results and complications of cyclophotocoagulation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2013;24(2):102–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0b013e32835d9335.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Varikuti VNV, Shah P, Rai O, Chaves AC, Miranda A, Lim BA, et al. Outcomes of micropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation in eyes with good central vision. J Glaucoma. 2019;28(10):901–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Anand N, Klug E, Nirappel A, Sola-Del VD. A review of cyclodestructive procedures for the treatment of glaucoma. Semin Ophthalmol. 2020;35(5–6):261–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2020.1810711.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Giannaccare G, Pellegrini M, Bernabei F, Urbini L, Bergamini F, Ferro Desideri L, et al. A 2-year prospective multicenter study of ultrasound cyclo plasty for glaucoma. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):12647. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92233-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Giannaccare G, Vagge A, Gizzi C, Bagnis A, Sebastiani S, Del Noce C, et al. High-intensity focused ultrasound treatment in patients with refractory glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;255(3):599–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-016-3563-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Luo Q, Xue W, Wang Y, Chen B, Wang S, Dong Y, et al. Ultrasound cycloplasty in Chinese glaucoma patients: results of a 6-month prospective clinical study. Ophthalmic Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1159/000515013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hu D, Tu S, Zuo C, Ge J. Short-term observation of ultrasonic cyclocoagulation in Chinese patients with end-stage refractory glaucoma: a retrospective study. J Ophthalmol. 2018;2018:4950318. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4950318.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Chan PP, Pang JC, Tham CC. Acute primary angle closure-treatment strategies, evidences and economical considerations. Eye (Lond). 2019;33(1):110–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-018-0278-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Fleck BW, Wright E, Fairley EA. A randomised prospective comparison of operative peripheral iridectomy and Nd:YAG laser iridotomy treatment of acute angle closure glaucoma: 3 year visual acuity and intraocular pressure control outcome. Br J Ophthalmol. 1997;81(10):884–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.81.10.884.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Krupin T, Mitchell KB, Johnson MF, Becker B. The long-term effects of iridectomy for primary acute angle-closure glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1978;86(4):506–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9394(78)90297-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lam DS, Leung DY, Tham CC, Li FC, Kwong YY, Chiu TY, et al. Randomized trial of early phacoemulsification versus peripheral iridotomy to prevent intraocular pressure rise after acute primary angle closure. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(7):1134–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.10.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Playfair TJ, Watson PG. Management of acute primary angle-closure glaucoma: a long-term follow-up of the results of peripheral iridectomy used as an initial procedure. Br J Ophthalmol. 1979;63(1):17–22. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.63.1.17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Moghimi S, Hashemian H, Chen R, Johari M, Mohammadi M, Lin SC. Early phacoemulsification in patients with acute primary angle closure. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2015;27(3–4):70–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joco.2015.12.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Husain R, Gazzard G, Aung T, Chen Y, Padmanabhan V, Oen FT, et al. Initial management of acute primary angle closure: a randomized trial comparing phacoemulsification with laser peripheral iridotomy. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(11):2274–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.06.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Imaizumi M, Takaki Y, Yamashita H. Phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation for acute angle closure not treated or previously treated by laser iridotomy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32(1):85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.11.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Baig N, Kam KW, Tham CC. Managing primary angle closure glaucoma - the role of lens extraction in this era. Open Ophthalmol J. 2016;10:86–93. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874364101610010086.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Aung T, Ang LP, Chan SP, Chew PT. Acute primary angle-closure: long-term intraocular pressure outcome in Asian eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;131(1):7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(00)00621-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Aung T, Friedman DS, Chew PT, Ang LP, Gazzard G, Lai YF, et al. Long-term outcomes in Asians after acute primary angle closure. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(8):1464–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.12.061.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Alsobaie NA, Almohizea AI, Al-Zahrani Y, Malik R. Goniosynechialysis for secondary angle closure glaucoma in aphakic patient after pars plana vitrectomy. Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep. 2018;12:15–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoc.2018.07.008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Mohamed Q, Fahey DK, Manners RM. Angle closure in fellow eye with prophylactic pilocarpine treatment. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85(10):1263. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.85.10.1260b.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Nolan WP, Foster PJ, Devereux JG, Uranchimeg D, Johnson GJ, Baasanhu J. YAG laser iridotomy treatment for primary angle closure in East Asian eyes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84(11):1255–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.84.11.1255.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. • He M, Jiang Y, Huang S, Chang DS, Munoz B, Aung T, et al. Laser peripheral iridotomy for the prevention of angle closure: a single-centre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10181):1609–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32607-2. A large randomized controlled trial which assessed the efficacy and safety of laser peripheral iridotomy prophylaxis against primary angle closure glaucoma.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. South East Asia Glaucoma Interest Group. Asia Pacific Glaucoma Guidelines. 2nd ed. Hong Kong: Scientific Communications International; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Xu BY, Friedman DS, Foster PJ, Jiang Y, Porporato N, Pardeshi AA, et al. Ocular biometric risk factors for progression of primary angle closure disease: the Zhongshan Angle Closure Prevention Trial. Ophthalmology. 2022;129(3):267–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.10.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Angle closure and angle closure glaucoma. reports and consensus statements of the 3rd global AIGS consensus meeting on angle closure glaucoma. The Netherlands: Kugler Publications; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Gazzard G, Friedman DS, Devereux JG, Chew P, Seah SK. A prospective ultrasound biomicroscopy evaluation of changes in anterior segment morphology after laser iridotomy in Asian eyes. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(3):630–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01893-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. He M, Friedman DS, Ge J, Huang W, Jin C, Lee PS, et al. Laser peripheral iridotomy in primary angle-closure suspects: biometric and gonioscopic outcomes: the Liwan Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(3):494–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.06.053.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Bourdon H, Aragno V, Baudouin C, Labbe A. Iridoplasty for plateau iris syndrome: a systematic review. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2019;4(1):e000340. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2019-000340.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Supakontanasan W, Thunwiriya P, Suwan Y, Nilphatanakorn S, Arunmongkol S, Teekhasaenee C. Effect of visibility of the ciliary body processes on ocular biometric parameters in patients with primary angle closure. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2019;63(6):467–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-019-00686-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Kim YK, Yoo BW, Kim HC, Aung T, Park KH. Relative lens vault in subjects with angle closure. BMC Ophthalmol. 2014;14:93. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-14-93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Moghimi S, Vahedian Z, Zandvakil N, Mohammdi M, Fakhraie G, Nassiri N, et al. Role of lens vault in subtypes of angle closure in Iranian subjects. Eye (Lond). 2014;28(3):337–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2013.296.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Junqueira DL, Prado VG, Lopes FS, Biteli LG, Dorairaj S, Prata TS. Non-pupillary block angle-closure mechanisms: a comprehensive analysis of their prevalence and treatment outcomes. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2014;77(6):360–3. https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.20140090.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Singh N, Pegu J, Dubey S, Gandhi M. To study the efficacy of laser peripheral iridoplasty in the treatment of eyes with primary angle closure and plateau iris syndrome, unresponsive to laser peripheral iridotomy, using anterior-segment OCT as a tool: comment. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(2):e123. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000569.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Ahmed IIK, Durr GM. Goniosynechialysis … to release or not to release? That is not the question. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2019;2(5):277–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogla.2019.08.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Liang YB, Wang NL, Rong SS, Thomas R. Initial treatment for primary angle-closure glaucoma in China. J Glaucoma. 2015;24(6):469–73. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000075.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Razeghinejad MR, Myers JS. Contemporary approach to the diagnosis and management of primary angle-closure disease. Surv Ophthalmol. 2018;63(6):754–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2018.05.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Sihota R, Gupta V, Agarwal HC. Long-term evaluation of trabeculectomy in primary open angle glaucoma and chronic primary angle closure glaucoma in an Asian population. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004;32(1):23–8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9071.2004.00752.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Ahmadzadeh A, Kessel L, Subhi Y, Bach-Holm D. Comparative efficacy of phacotrabeculectomy versus trabeculectomy with or without later phacoemulsification: a systematic review with meta-analyses. J Ophthalmol. 2021;2021:6682534. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6682534.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Jiang Y, Chang DS, Zhu H, Khawaja AP, Aung T, Huang S, et al. Longitudinal changes of angle configuration in primary angle-closure suspects: the Zhongshan Angle-Closure Prevention Trial. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(9):1699–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.03.039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand

    Sunee Chansangpetch

  2. Glaucoma Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Sunee Chansangpetch

  3. Glaucoma Center of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Shan C. Lin

Authors
  1. Sunee Chansangpetch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shan C. Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunee Chansangpetch.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Diagnosis and Monitoring of Glaucoma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chansangpetch, S., Lin, S.C. Angle Closure Glaucoma—Update on Treatment Paradigms. Curr Ophthalmol Rep 10, 63–72 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40135-022-00290-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40135-022-00290-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation