Page 90 - NAME OF CONDITION: REFRACTIVE ERRORS

 Intravitreal silicon oil/ gas induced

 Ciliochoroidal effusions

 Suprachoroidal haemorrhage

 Scleral buckling

II. INCIDENCE OF THE CONDITION IN OUR COUNTRY

Reported prevalence differences between studies occur due to differing
methodology and classification of angle closure in these studies. The estimates of
number of people with angle closure glaucoma in 2010 were 15.4 million for the
world with India accounting for 3.7 million cases. Estimates of angle closure

glaucoma in 2020 will rise to 21 million for the world and above 5 million for India.
The reported prevalence for PACG in Vellore eye study (VES) was 4.32%. In Andhra
Pradesh Eye Disease Study (APEDS), the reported prevalence for PACG was noted to
be 1.08% with another 2.21% having ‘occludable angles’. The criteria for occulability
was different between the studies-the VES considered one half or more angle to be
narrow to be considered occludable while APEDS had a criteria of three quarters or
more. Moreover, VES incorporated PAC and PACG together into PACG. The actual

prevalence of PACG would have been 0.5% alone. A similar prevalence of 0.5% for
PACG was reported by Aravind Comprehensive Eye Survey (ACS).
The Chennai Glaucoma Study (CGS), using the current ISGEO criteria reported higher
rates for PACS, PAC and PACG in the urban cohort as compared to rural one. The

prevalence of PACG was noted to be 0.87% in rural and 0.88% in urban cohorts.
Besides this, 6.3 % were classified as PACS and 0.7% as PAC in the rural cohort as
compared to 7.2 and 2.8% in urban cohorts.
The prevalence of PACS has been noted to be higher than PAC and PACG in these,
implying that all patients of PACS do not necessarily progress to PAC and PACG and
the slow rate of conversion for the same.

III.DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

 Secondary pupillary block due to uveitis with iris bombe

 Malignant glaucoma
 Lens induced angle closure-phacomorphic/ subluxation/ dislocation
 Neovascular glaucomas

90