Glaucoma and frequency of ocular and general diseases in 30 patients with aniridia: a clinical study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the following in patients with aniridia: age at first examination at the University Eye Hospital and age at diagnosis of glaucoma; visual acuity; frequency of family history of aniridia; and frequency of ocular and general diseases associated with aniridia. METHODS: This was a consecutive examination of 30 unrelated patients with aniridia and retrospective evaluation of ophthalmologic, pediatric, and internal findings. The relative frequency of age at glaucoma diagnosis within decades was evaluated for the 20 patients with aniridia and glaucoma. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: Relative frequency of the age of patients with aniridia at time of glaucoma diagnosis within the following decades was as follows: from birth to 9 years: 15%, 10-19: 15%, 20-29: 15%, 30-39: 15%, 40-49: 35%, and 50-59: 5%. Visual acuity in the better eye of 20/100 or less was found in 60%. Family history of aniridia was found in 33.3% of patients, with 1-4 relatives with aniridia. A total of 76.7% of patients had congenital cataract, and 66.7% had glaucoma. Mean maximum intraocular pressure of the 20 patients with glaucoma was 35.9 mmHg in the right and 32.6 mmHg in the left eye. A total of 53.3% had nystagmus, 26.6% corneal opacifications, 16.7% bilateral lens dislocation upwards, 6.7% optic nerve hypoplasia, 3.3% poor foveal development, and 3.3% Wilms tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Up to the age of 40 years, 15% of patients were diagnosed with glaucoma per age decade. Frequent bilateral glaucoma and similar bilateral height of intraocular pressure suggest a genetic glaucoma disposition with malformation at Schlemm canal, besides possible sequential anatomic changes in the chamber angle. Associated ocular abnormalities limit visual prognosis.

Survey of german clinical prescribing philosophies for hyperopia.

PURPOSE: We surveyed a group of German ophthalmologists to evaluate their prescribing philosophies for hyperopic refractive error in symptom-free children and to compare them with the two groups of U.S. pediatric ophthalmologists and U.S. pediatric optometrists as surveyed by Lyons et al. METHODS: Practitioners were selected from a list of ophthalmologists on the Internet. They were either in general practice in three cities in northern Bavaria or affiliated with large ophthalmology teaching hospitals in Wuerzburg and Erlangen. The survey questions of Lyons et al. were translated into German and mailed to 103 ophthalmologists. The data received from the German ophthalmologists were compared with those of the U.S. optometrists and ophthalmologists. RESULTS: A total of 45 surveys (44%) were returned to us and analyzed. In cases of asymptomatic bilateral hyperopia, German ophthalmologists did not prescribe significantly differently from U.S. optometrists at all patient age groups (p > or = 0.05), but they did differ significantly from U.S. ophthalmologists (p < 0.001). Prescribing fractional amounts of hyperopia or astigmatism was not a popular rule of thumb among the German ophthalmologists, and there was no statistical difference between the German and U.S. practitioners. German ophthalmologists would prescribe for anisometropia for all patient age groups in the same way as both U.S. optometrists and U.S. ophthalmologists. CONCLUSION: The prescribing philosophies of German ophthalmologists for pediatric patients did not differ from those of U.S. ophthalmologists and U.S. optometrists when prescribing for anisometropia; they did differ from those of U.S. ophthalmologists but not of those of the U.S. optometrists when prescribing for asymptomatic bilateral hyperopia.