Clinical Features of Juvenile Open-angle Glaucoma

• Published in: Oftalmologii͡a Vol. 22; no. 2; pp. 347 - 353
• Main Authors: Malyshev, A. V., Apostolova, A. S., Sergienko, A. A., Teshev, A. F., Karapetov, G. Yu, Ashhamahova, M. K., Hatsukova, B. N.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English; Russian
• Published: Ophthalmology Publishing Group 27.06.2025
• Subjects: biomechanical properties of the fibrous capsule of the eye; central corneal thickness; corneal-compensated pressure; juvenile open-angle glaucoma; tonometry
• ISSN: 1816-5095; 2500-0845
• DOI: 10.18008/1816-5095-2025-2-347-353

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.