Laser iridotomy to treat uveitis-glaucoma-hyphema syndrome secondary to reverse pupillary block in sulcus-placed intraocular lenses: Case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To present cases of uveitis-glaucoma-hyphema (UGH) syndrome due to reverse pupillary block in sulcus-placed posterior chamber intraocular lenses (PC IOLs) that were managed with laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI). SETTING: Community-based subspecialty clinics. DESIGN: Retrospective interventional case series. METHODS: A chart review of patients with a sulcus-placed PC IOLs presenting with UGH syndrome and reverse pupillary block with posterior iris bowing as diagnosed by gonioscopy and anterior segment optical coherence tomography was carried out. Laser peripheral iridotomy was performed in the eyes included in the study. The main outcome measure was clinical resolution of UGH syndrome. RESULTS: The study included 6 eyes of 6 patients with a mean age of 59.8 years (range 43.0 to 66.0 years) who presented with unilateral UGH syndrome a mean of 28.7 months (range 0.3 to 84.0 months) after PC IOL implantation. All patients were previously myopic, with 5 (83.3%) having a history of vitrectomy. The mean axial length was 27.0 mm ± 1.4 (SD). An LPI was used to treat the reverse pupillary block with resultant improvement in iris profile and resolution of UGH syndrome in all eyes. The mean intraocular pressure decreased from 30.5 ± 10.0 mm Hg on 0.5 ± 0.8 glaucoma medications to 15.5 ± 3.2 mm Hg postoperatively on 0.7 ± 1.2 medications. CONCLUSIONS: The UGH syndrome due to reverse pupillary block occurred after sulcus-placed PC IOLs in susceptible patients, those with axial myopia, and post-vitrectomized eyes. The cases were managed with LPIs. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Dr. Ahmed is a consultant to Alcon Laboratories, Inc. and Abbott Medical Optics, Inc. No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".