Clinical Features of Juvenile Open-angle Glaucoma

Juvenile open-angle glaucoma (JOAG) is a genetically determined disease of young age, which is diagnosed before the 40, which is based on anomalies in the structure of the drainage system of the eye.

Objective: to identify the features of morphometric and biomechanical parameters of the fibrous capsule in patients with JOAG.

Materials and methods. 19 eyes of 10 patients with JOAG were examined. In all cases, glaucoma was compensated, the initial stage was observed in 42 %, developed — in 31.5 %, advanced — in 21 %, terminal — in 5.5 % of cases. The control group consisted of 18 healthy eyes. IOP was studied taking into account the biomechanical properties of the fibrous capsule of the eye bIOP, DA Ratio, Integr. Radius (IR), SP-A1, SSI. Statistical processing of the obtained results was carried out using the standard statistical analysis software package “SPSS 16.0 for Windows”. The given parameters with normal distribution were presented in the format M ± m, where M is the mean value, m is the standard error of the mean.

Results. JOAG patients were younger than the control group — 30.1 ± 1.5 and 37.0 ± 1.9 years, p = 0.007, there were 58 % men versus 42 % women. In JOAG, there was a greater axial length of the eye — 25.81 ± 0.34 and 23.29 ± 0.13 mm, p = 0.000. When comparing the level of IOP, no differences were found between JOAG and healthy eyes. The DA ratio and IR parameters did not differ between JOAG and healthy eyes, SP-A1 was higher in JOAG compared to a healthy eye, but this difference was not reliable p = 0.384. When comparing BGF between the groups, despite the higher values i n JOAG — 16.68 ± 5.7 versus 7.44 ± 1.31 in the healthy eye, the difference is not significant, p = 0.131, but the dispersions for this indicator are not equal, p = 0.003. And only SSI was significantly lower in JOAG compared to the healthy eye — 0.93 ± 0.05 and 1.21 ± 0.05, p = 0.000, which is determined by the differences in the axial length (correlation between axial length and SSI r = -0.622, p = 0.004).

Conclusions/ Patients with JOAG differ from healthy eyes in increased axial length of the eye, in biomechanical indicators the difference was revealed only in SSI, which correlates with the axial length.

1. WeinrebRN, Grajewski A, Papadopoulos M, GrigJ, FreemanS. Childhood Glaucoma. World glaucoma Association (Consensus Series‑9). Amsterdam: Kugler Publication; 2013.

2. Hoguet A, Grajewski A, Hodapp E, Chang TC. A retrospective survey of childhood glaucoma prevalence according to Childhood Glaucoma Research Network classification. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2016;64(2):118–123. doi: 10.4103/0301‑4738.179716.

3. Mandal AK, Netland PN. The Pediatric Glaucomas. Edinburgh: Elsevier; 2006. 3. Weinreb RN, Grajewski A, Papadopoulos M, Grig J, Freeman S. Childhood Glaucoma. World glaucoma Association (ConsensusSeries‑9). Amsterdam: Kugler Publication; 2013.

4. Senthil S, Badakere S, Ganesh J, Krishnamurthy R, Dikshit S, Choudhari N, Garudadri C, Mandal AK. Profile of childhood glaucoma at a tertiary center in South India. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2019 Mar;67(3):358–365. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_786_18.

5. Bouhenni RA, Ricker I, Hertle RW. Prevalence and Clinical Characteristics of Childhood Glaucoma at a Tertiary Care Children’s Hospital. J Glaucoma. 2019 Jul;28(7):655–659. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001259.

6. Mokbel TH, El Hefney EM, Hagras SM, AL Nagdy AA, Badawi AE, Kasem MA, El Shaer SM. Childhood glaucoma profile in Dakahelia, Egypt: aretrospective study. Int J Ophthalmol. 2018 Apr 18;11(4):674–680. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2018.04.23.

7. Tchabi S, Doutétien C, Amoussouga A, Babagbéto M, Lawani R, Déguénon J, Bassabi SK. Le tonus oculaire chez les Béninois: dépistage du glaucome primitif à angle ouvert [Intraocular pressure in the Benin: screening for primary open‑angle glaucoma]. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2005 Jun;28(6):623–626. French. doi: 10.1016/s0181‑5512(05)81106‑4.

8. Goldwyn R, Waltman SR, Becker B. Primary open‑angle glaucoma in adolescents and young adults. Arch Ophthalmol. 1970 Nov;84(5):579–582. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1970.00990040581004.

9. Mihailov NO, Gorbunova NU, Pozdeeva NA Laser goniosynechiolysis in the treatment of juvenile glaucoma. Modern technologies in ophthalmology. 2018:4:197–199 (In Russ.). EDN: XTFTLF

10. Selvan H, Gupta S, Wiggs JL, Gupta V. Juvenile‑onset open‑angle glaucoma — A clinical and genetic update. Surv Ophthalmol. 2022 Jul‑Aug;67(4):1099–1117. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2021.09.001.

11. Katargina LA, Tarasenkov AO, Mazanova EV. Technology for assessing visual functions in children with congenitalglaucoma in order to predict and correct treatment. Moscow: Medical technology Publ. of Helmholz Eye Reserch Intitute; 2009 (In Russ.).

12. Yuldashev AM, Usenko VA. Clinical and anatomical features of the eye in patients with a combination of high myopia and juvenile glaucoma. RMJ. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2017;17(4):244–247 (In Russ.).

13. Eliasy A, Chen KJ, Vinciguerra R. Determination of Corneal Biomechanical Behavior in‑vivo for Healthy Eyes Using CorVis ST Tonometry: Stress‑Strain Index. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:105. Published 2019 May 16. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00105.

14. Kwun Y, Lee EJ, Han JC, Kee C. Clinical Characteristics of Juvenile‑onset Open Angle Glaucoma. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2016 Apr;30(2):127–133. doi: 10.3341/kjo.2016.30.2.127.

15. Lopes NL, Gracitelli CPB, Rolim‑de‑Moura C. Childhood Glaucoma Profile in a Brazilian Tertiary Care Center Using Childhood Glaucoma Research Network Classification. J Glaucoma. 2021 Feb 1;30(2):129–133. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001712.

16. Elgin U, Şen E, Uzel M, Yılmazbaş P. Comparison of Refractive Status and Anterior Segment Parameters of Juvenile Open‑Angle Glaucoma and Normal Subjects. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2018 Dec 27;48(6):295–298. doi: 10.4274/tjo.68915.

17. Urban B, Bakunowicz‑Łazarczyk A, Michalczuk M, Krętowska M. Evaluation of corneal endothelium in adolescents with juvenile glaucoma. J Ophthalmol. 2015;2015:895428. doi: 10.1155/2015/895428.

18. Liu Q, Pang C, Liu C, Cheng W, Ming S, Du W, Feng X. Correlations among Corneal Biomechanical Parameters, Stiffness, and Thickness Measured Using Corvis ST and Pentacam in Patients with Ocular Hypertension. J Ophthalmol. 2022 Dec 3;2022:7387581. doi: 10.1155/2022/7387581.

19. Shkrebets GV. Study of biomechanical properties of the fibrous capsule in high myopia with different clinical courses. Russian Ophthalmological Journal. 2011;2: 69–71 (In Russ.).

20. Khamroeva YuA, Khamraeva LS. Optical and biometric indicators of the eye in children with juvenile glaucoma combined with myopia. Russian Ophthalmological Journal. 2022;15(3):75–79 (In Russ.). doi: 10.21516/2072‑0076‑2022‑15‑3‑75‑79.

21. Tarasenkov AO. Classification, diagnosis and treatment of juvenile glaucoma. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2021;137(4):123–127 (In Russ.). doi: 10.17116/oftalma2021137041123.

22. Shkrebetc GV, Ovsiannikov VG. New results of rheological studies in the pathogenesis of primary juvenile glaucoma in high myopia. Kuban Scientific Medical Bulletin 2013;2(137):16–18 (In Russ.).