Journals / Glokom Katarakt / 2021 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 4

Haptic Dislocation Mimicking Ciliary Body and Iris Mass

Pages
208–210
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

UBM imaging is an importantimaging modality that allows visualization of posterior chamber and provides information in the differential diagnosis of localized bulging of the iris.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:A 79-year-old male applied to our clinic for routine examination.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Slit-lamp examination revealed posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL), iris elevation at 9 o’clock and narrowing of anterior chamber angle in the right eye.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:UBM imaging is an importantimaging modality that allows visualization of posterior chamber and provides information in the differential diagnosis of localized bulging of the iris.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

A 79-year-old male applied to our clinic for routine examination. Slit-lamp examination revealed posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL), iris elevation at 9 o’clock and narrowing of anterior chamber angle in the right eye. Although the clinical findings were suggestive for ciliary body mass, ultrasonic biomicroscopy (UBM) demonstrated IOL haptic dislocation at the elevated area. UBM imaging is an importantimaging modality that allows visualization of posterior chamber and provides information in the differential diagnosis of localized bulging of the iris.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tekeli, O., Biçer, Ö., Hoşal, M. B., Büyüktepe, T. Ç. (2022). Haptic Dislocation Mimicking Ciliary Body and Iris Mass. Glokom Katarakt, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 4, 208–210. https://ajindex.com/articles/525724

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Pavlin CJ, Harasiewicz K, Sherar MD, et al. Clinical use of ultrasound biomicroscopy. Ophthalmology 1991;98:287-95
  2. Becker B, Shaffer RN. Diagnosis and Therapy of the Glaucomas, ed 2, St. Louis: The CV Mosby Co. Medical Publishers. 1965:108
  3. Scott C Hau, Vasilios Papastefanou, Shima Shah, et al. Evaluation of iris and iridociliary body lesions with anterior segment optical coherence tomography versus ultrasound B-scan. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99:81-6
  4. Minavi AZ, Holdeman NR. Peripheral pigmentary iris cyst: evaluation and differential diagnosis. Clin Exp Optom 2007;90:49-52
  5. Wolffsohn JS, Davies LN. Advances in anterior segment imaging. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2007;18:32-8
  6. Gündüz K, Hoşal BM, Zilelioğlu G, et al. The use of ultrasound biomicroscopy in the evaluation of anterior segment tumors and simulating conditions. Ophthalmologica. 2007;221:305- 12
  7. Oliveira C, Liebmann JM, Dodick JM, et al. Identi fication of retained nucleus fragment in the posterior chamber using ultrasound biomicroscopy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141:964- 6
  8. Hoşal BM, Deniz H, Zilelio ğlu G. Arka kamara göz içi lens pozisyonunun ultrason biyomikroskopi ile incelenmesi. MN Oftalmoloji. 2013:10;308-311
  9. Masket S. Pseudophakic posterior iris cha fing syndrome. J Cataract Refract Surg 1986;12:252-6
  10. Johnson S, Kratz R, Olson P. Iris transillumination defect and microhyphema syndrome. J Am Intraocul Implant Soc. 1984;10:425-8.