PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
Journal
2015 | 2 | 4 | 240-257
Article title

Individualized as opposed to standardized care for glaucoma patients – the key to success. The use of the DDLS and the Colored Glaucoma Graph

Content
Title variants
PL
Indywidualne kontra standardowe podejście do pacjenta – klucz do sukcesu w leczeniu jaskry. Zastosowanie skali DDLS i Colored Glaucoma Graph
Languages of publication
EN PL
Abstracts
EN
Glaucoma is first cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. Statistical data, such as that obtained from randomized clinical trials, can only rarely be appropriately applied to individual glaucoma patients. This relates to many “statistically” so called normal or abnormal parameters in every field, medical and nonmedical. One area in which the shortcomings of the standardized approach is most apparent is in regard to the diagnosis and treatment of glaucoma. In this article, we note the difficulties attendant to using the average to mean healthy and the statistically different to mean unhealthy. There is a better way, which is to use each person as her or his own control. For example, age is a poor glaucoma indicator. Yet it is essential to have a good idea of life expectancy and it is not difficult to make such an estimate by considering factors other than age. We present our outlook on the diagnostics, monitoring and prognosing the outcomes of glaucomatous neuropathy not only from the ophthalmological, but also from a humanistic point of view.
PL
Jaskra jest globalnie pierwszą przyczyną nieodwracalnej ślepoty. Statystyki opierające się na licznych randomizowanych badaniach naukowych, prowadzonych na całym świecie od wielu lat, nie zawsze znajdują zastosowanie wobec konkretnego, indywidualnego pacjenta. Ma to miejsce w przypadku wielu „statystycznie” prawidłowych lub nieprawidłowych wartości, zarówno w kwestiach medycznych, jak i niemedycznych. Te niedostatki wynikające z szablonowego podejścia do pacjenta są szczególnie istotne w diagnostyce i leczeniu jaskry. W niniejszym artykule zwracamy uwagę na trudności w definiowaniu „przeciętnego” jako „zdrowego” oraz „odbiegającego od statystycznej normy” jako „chorego”. Lepszą drogą dla danego pacjenta jest traktowanie jako punktu odniesienia jego samego. Przykładowo, wiek chorego nie stanowi zbyt dobrego prognostyku jaskry – ważniejsze jest oszacowanie przewidywanej długości życia. Nie jest to trudne, biorąc pod uwagę inne czynniki zdrowotne niż sam wiek. W poniższym artykule przedstawiamy nasze spojrzenie na diagnostykę, rozpoznawanie, monitorowanie i rokowanie w jaskrze w ujęciu nie tylko okulistycznym, ale także humanistycznym.
Discipline
Publisher

Journal
Year
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
240-257
Physical description
Contributors
author
  • Wills Eye Hospital /Jefferson Medical College, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, USA
References
  • 1. Tham YC, 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.
  • 2. Stan Zdrowia Ludności Polski w Przekroju Terytorialnym w 2004 r. Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Zakład Wydawnictw Statystycznych, Warszawa 2007 [online: http://stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/stan_zdrowia_2004_teryt.pdf ].
  • 3. Heijl A. Perimetry, tonometry and epidemiology: the fate of glaucoma management. Acta Ophthalmol 2011; 89(4): 309-315.
  • 4. Asaoka R, Crabb DP, Yamashita T, et al. Patients have two eyes!: binocular versus better eye visual field indices. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52(9): 7007-7011.
  • 5. 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.
  • 6. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. A visual field index for calculation of glaucoma rate of progression. Am J Ophthalmol 2008; 145(2): 343-353.
  • 7. Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goñi FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2008; 92(4): 569-573.
  • 8. Bengtsson B, Patella VM, Heijl A. Prediction of glaucomatous visual field loss by extrapolation of linear trends. Arch Ophthalmol 2009; 127(12): 1610-1615.
  • 9. Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goñi FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2008; 92(4): 569-573.
  • 10. Broman AT, Quigley HA, West SK, et al. Estimating the rate of progressive visual field damage in those with open-angle glaucoma, from cross-sectional data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49(1): 66-76.
  • 11. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. A visual field index for calculation of glaucoma rate of progression. Am J Ophthalmol 2008; 145(2): 343-353.
  • 12. Iester MM, Wollstein G, Bilonick RA, et al. Agreement among graders on Heidelberg retina tomograph (HRT) topographic change analysis (TCA) glaucoma progression interpretation. Br J Ophthalmol 2015; 99(4): 519-523.
  • 13. Kjaergaard SM, Alencar LM, Nguyen B, et al. Detection of retinal nerve fibre layer progression: comparison of the fast and extended modes of GDx guided progression analysis. Br J Ophthalmol 2011; 95(12): 1707-1712.
  • 14. Leung CK, Cheung CY, Weinreb RN, et al. Evaluation of retinal nerve fiber layer progression in glaucoma: a study on optical coherence tomography guided progression analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51(1): 217-222.
  • 15. Bussel II, Wollstein G, Schuman JS. OCT for glaucoma diagnosis, screening and detection of glaucoma progression. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014; 98(supl. 2): ii15-19.
  • 16. Banegas SA, Antón A, Morilla-Grasa A, et al. Agreement among spectral-domain optical coherence tomography, standard automated perimetry, and stereophotography in the detection of glaucoma progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015; 56(2): 1253-1260.
  • 17. Grewal DS, Sehi M, Greenfield DS. Detecting glaucomatous progression using GDx with variable and enhanced corneal compensation using Guided Progression Analysis. Br J Ophthalmol 2011; 95(4): 502-508.
  • 18. Kjaergaard SM, Alencar LM, Nguyen B, et al. Detection of retinal nerve fibre layer progression: comparison of the fast and extended modes of GDx guided progression analysis. Br J Ophthalmol 2011; 95(12): 1707-1712.
  • 19. Wasyluk J, Prost ME. Jak sprawdzić, czy leczymy jaskrę skutecznie? Przegląd współczesnych metod oceny progresji neuropatii jaskrowej. Okulistyka 2015; 18(2): 12-17.
  • 20. Caprioli J, Coleman AL. Intraocular pressure fluctuation a risk factor for visual field progression at low intraocular pressures in the advanced glaucoma intervention study. Ophthalmology 2008; 115(7): 1123-1129.
  • 21. Heijl A, Leske C, Bengtsson B, et al. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Reduction of Intraocular Pressure and Glaucoma Progression. Arch Ophthalmology 2002; 120: 1268-1279.
  • 22. Heijl A, Buchholz P, Norrgren G, Bengtsson B. Rates of visual field progression in clinical glaucoma care. Acta Ophthalmol 2013; 91(5): 406-412.
  • 23. Laemmer R, Schroeder S, Martus P, et al. Quantification of neuroretinal rim loss using digital planimetry in long-term follow-up of normals and patients with ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma 2007: 16(5): 430-436.
  • 24. Garway-Heath DF, Wollstein G, Hitchings RA. Aging changes of the optic nerve head in relation to open angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1997; 81(10): 840-845.
  • 25. Brusini P. Estimating glaucomatous anatomical damage by computerized automated perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl. 1997; (224): 28-29.
  • 26. Spaeth GL, Lopes JF, Junk AK, et al. Systems for staging the amount of optic nerve damage in glaucoma: a critical review and new material. Surv Ophthalmol 2006; 51(4): 293-315.
  • 27. Pickard R. The alteration in size of the normal optic disc cup. Br J Ophthalmol 1948; 32(6): 355-356.
  • 28. Spaeth GL, Hwang S, Gomes M. Uszkodzenie tarczy nerwu wzrokowego jako prognostyczna i terapeutyczna wskazówka podczas leczenia pacjentów z jaskrą. Okulistyka 2000; wyd. specjalne IV/2000.
  • 29. Read RM, Spaeth GL. The practical clinical appraisal of the optic disc in glaucoma: the natural history of cup progression and some specific disc-field correlations. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 1974; 78: OP255-274.
  • 30. WGA Consensus Series 1, Glaucoma Diagnosis – Structure and Function, edited by Weinreb RN & Greve EL, Kugler Publications, USA, 2004.
  • 31. Spaeth GL, Reddy SC. Imaging of the optic disk in caring for patients with glaucoma: ophthalmoscopy and photography remain the gold standard. Surv Ophthalmol 2014; 59(4): 454-458.
  • 32. Zangalli C, Gupta SR, Spaeth GL. The disc as the basis of treatment for glaucoma. Saudi J Ophthalmol 2011; 25(4): 381-387.
  • 33. Spaeth GL, Henderer J, Liu C, et al. The disc damage likelihood scale (DDLS): its use in the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. Highlights of Ophthalmology 2003; 31: 4-19.
  • 34. Henderer JD. Disc damage likelihood scale. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90(4): 395-396.
  • 35. Spaeth GL, Henderer J, Liu C, et al. The disc damage likelihood scale: reproducibility of a new method of estimating the amount of optic nerve damage caused by glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2002; 100: 181-185.
  • 36. Henderer JD, Liu C, Kesen M, et al. Reliability of the Disk Damage Likelihood Scale. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 135(1): 44-48.
  • 37. Hornova J, Kuntz Navarro JBV, Prasad A, et al. Correlation of Disc Damage Likelihood Scale, Visual Field and Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II in Patients with Glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol 2008; 18: 739-747.
  • 38. Danesh-Meyer HV, Gaskin BJ, Jayusundera T, et al. Comparison of disc damage likelihood scale, cup to disc ratio, and Heidelberg retina tomography in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90(4): 437-441.
  • 39. Zangwill LM, Jain S, Racette L, et al. The effect of disc size and severity of disease on the diagnostic accuracy of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph Glaucoma Probability Score. Invest Ophth Vis Sci 2007; 48(6): 2653-2660.
  • 40. Mathews PM, Ramulu PY, Friedman DS, et al. Evaluation of ocular surface disease in patients with glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2013; 120(11): 2241-2248.
  • 41. Stewart WC, Stewart JA, Nelson LA. Ocular surface disease in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Curr Eye Res 2011; 36(5): 391-398.
  • 42. Leung EW, Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN. Prevalence of ocular surface disease in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma 2008; 17(5): 350-355.
  • 43. Sun Y, Lin C, Waisbourd M, et al. The Impact of Visual Field Clusters on Performance-Based Measures and Vision-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2015 Dec 14 [Epub ahead of print].
  • 44. Altangerel U, Spaeth GL, Steinmann WC. Assessment of function related to vision (AFREV). Ophthalm Epidemiol 2006; 13(1): 67-80.
  • 45. Ekici F, Loh R, Waisbourd M, et al. Relationships Between Measures of the Ability to Perform Vision-Related Activities, Vision- -Related Quality of Life, and Clinical Findings in Patients With Glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol 2015; 133(12): 1377-1385.
  • 46. Hu CX, Zangalli C, Hsieh M, et al. What do patients with glaucoma see? Visual symptoms reported by patients with glaucoma. Am J Med Sci 2014; 348(5): 403-409.
  • 47. Katz LJ, Steinmann WC, Kabir A, et al.; SLT/Med Study Group. Selective laser trabeculoplasty versus medical therapy as initial treatment of glaucoma: a prospective, randomized trial. J Glaucoma 2012; 21(7): 460-468.
  • 48. McAlinden C. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) vs other treatment modalities for glaucoma: systematic review. Eye 2014; 28(3): 249-258.
  • 49. Waisbourd M, Katz LJ. Selective laser trabeculoplasty as a first-line therapy: a review. Can J Ophthalmol 2014; 49(6): 519-522.
  • 50. Patel V, El Hawy E, Waisbourd M, et al. Long-term outcomes in patients initially responsive to selective laser trabeculoplasty. Int J Ophthalmol 2015; 8(5): 960-964.
  • 51. European Glaucoma Society “Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma”, PubliComm 2014, Savona, Italy, 166-168.
  • 52. Spaeth G, Walt J, Keener J. Evaluation of Quality of Life for Patients with Glaucoma. Amer J Glaucoma 2006; 141(1): 3-13.
Document Type
article
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.psjd-89558711-56db-4950-ac64-39019653822d
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.