This website uses cookies to help us give you the best browsing experience. By continuing to use this portal, you agree to our use of this tool.
To learn more about how we use cookies and how to manage them please read our notice here.
Tip of the Month
Tip of the month - Temporal placement of a laser peripheral iridotomy is safe and is less likely to result in linear dysphotopsia than if the PI is placed superiorly
Temporal placement of a laser peripheral iridotomy is safe and is less likely to result in linear dysphotopsia than if the PI is placed superiorly

Publishing date: July 2014

Tip Editors: John Salmon and Gordana Sunaric M├ęgevand
Tip reviewer: Roger Hitchings


The Science behind the Tip

To prevent pupil block, a laser peripheral iridotomy (PI) is the initial treatment for patients with primary angle-closure/glaucoma. When placed superiorly, 2-4% of patients subsequently report linear dysphotopsia (1) (2). This is described as a hazy, hair-like horizontal line, silver or blue-grey in colour, worse in bright light and less pronounced in dim light. The cause is thought to be an optical aberration secondary to the base-up prismatic effect of the tear meniscus, particularly when the PI is partially covered by the upper lid (2).

In a recent trial, 10.7% of patients had linear dysphotopsia after a superiorly placed PI (6.5% despite complete lid coverage) compared with 2.4% of patients after a temporal PI (3). Ophthalmologists should warn patients of this visual consequence of laser PI and should consider placing the PI in the temporal peripheral iris.

Contributor: John Salmon, Oxford, UK



References

1. Murphy PH, Trope GE  Monocular blurring. A complication of YAG laser iritotomy.  Ophthalmology 1991; 98: 1539-42

2. Spaeth GL, Idowu O, Seligson A et al. The effect of iridotomy size and positions or symptoms following laser peripheral iridotomy. J Glaucoma 2005; 14:364-7.

3. Vera V, Naqi A, Belovay GW et al. Dysphotopsia after temporal versus superior laser peripheral iridotomy: a prospective, randomised paired eye trial. Am J Ophthalmol 2014; 157: 929-35



back to top