Glaucoma in the Twenty-First Century

  • Ridia Lim
  • Ivan Goldberg


Our concepts of the glaucomas evolve as our understanding of disease processes increases, technology advances, and our treatment strategies become more sophisticated. Technology has always corralled our definitions and our understanding of the glaucomas; the challenge of this new century is to focus our progress for the direct benefit of our patients.


Visual Field Optic Disc Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Glaucoma Patient Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Shaffer RN. The centennial history of glaucoma (1896-1996), American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 1996;103(8 Suppl):S40-S50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shaffer RN. Fifty years in ophthalmology. Surv Ophthalmol. 1990;35(3):236–239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nathan J. Hippocrates to Duke-Elder: an overview of the history of glaucoma. Clin Exp Optom. 2000;83(3):116–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frezzotti R. The glaucoma mystery from ancient times to the 21st century, The glaucoma mystery: ancient concepts. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl 2000;(232):14–18Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keeler R. Antique ophthalmic instruments and books: the Royal College Museum. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(7):712–714.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andersen SR. The history of the Ophthalmological Society of Copenhagen 1900-1950. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl. 2002;234:6–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dellaporta A. Historical notes on gonioscopy. Surv Ophthalmol. 1975;20(2):137–149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ritch R, Caronia RM, eds, Classic Papers in Glaucoma, Kugler Publications, The Netherlands, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mitchell P, Smith W, Attebo K, Healey PR. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 1996;103(10):1661–1669.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wensor MD, McCarty CA, Stanislavsky YL, et al. The prevalence of glaucoma in the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(4):733–739.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Varma R, Ying-Lai M, Francis BA, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension in Latinos: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(8):1439–1448.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sakata K, Sakata LM, Sakata VM, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma in a South brazilian population: Projeto Glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(11):4974–4979.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wong EY, Keeffe JE, Rait JL, et al. Detection of undiagnosed glaucoma by eye health professionals. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(8):1508–1514.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. WHO Chron. 1968;22:473.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilson MR. The myth of “21”. J Glaucoma. 1997;6(2):75–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leydhecker W, Akiyama K, Neumann HG. Intraocular pressure in normal human eyes. Klin Monatsblatter Augenheilkd Augenarztl Fortbild. 1958;133(5):662–670.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hollows FC, Graham PA. Intra-ocular pressure, glaucoma, and glaucoma suspects in a defined population. Br J Ophthalmol. 1966;50(10):570–586.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eddy DM, Sanders LE, Eddy JF. The value of screening for glaucoma with tonometry. Surv Ophthalmol. 1983;28(3):194–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eddy DM, Billings J. The quality of medical evidence: implications for quality of care. Health Aff (Millwood). 1988;7(1):19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. The AGIS Investigators. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130(4):429–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klein BE, Klein R, Sponsel WE, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 1992;99(10):1499–1504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Feiner L, Piltz-Seymour JR. Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: a summary of results to date. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2003;14(2):106–111.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;126(4):487–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miglior S, Zeyen T, Pfeiffer N, et al. Results of the European Glaucoma Prevention Study. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(3):366–375.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(10):1268–1279.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Five-year follow-up of the Fluorouracil Filtering Surgery Study. The Fluorouracil Filtering Surgery Study Group. Am J Ophthalmol 1996;121(4):349–366Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    The Glaucoma Laser Trial (GLT) and glaucoma laser trial follow-up study: 7. Results. Glaucoma Laser Trial Research Group. Am J Ophthalmol 1995;120(6):718–731Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120(6):714-720; discussion 829–830PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Friedman DS, Jampel HD, Munoz B, West SK. The prevalence of open-angle glaucoma among blacks and whites 73 years and older: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation Glaucoma Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124(11):1625–1630.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Burr JM, Mowatt G, Hernandez R, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for open angle glaucoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2007;11(41):iii-iv, ix-x, 1–190Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fleming C, Whitlock E, Biel T, Smit B. Primary care screening for ocular hypertension and primary open-angle glaucoma: Evidence Synthesis. No. 34. Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, US Preventative Services Task Force; 2005. Available at: Accessed June 2008
  32. 32.
    Weinreb RN, Healey PR and Topouzis Glaucoma Screening, WGA consensus series 5, Kugler Publications, 2008 The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Grodum K, Heijl A, Bengtsson B. A comparison of glaucoma patients identified through mass screening and in routine clinical practice. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2002;80(6):627–631.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    South East Asia Glaucoma Interest Group Guidlines, published on-line at
  35. 35.
    Danesh-Meyer HV, Deva NC, Slight C, et al. What do people with glaucoma know about their condition? A comparative cross-sectional incidence and prevalence survey. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2008;36(1):13–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Odberg T, Jakobsen JE, Hultgren SJ, Halseide R. The impact of glaucoma on the quality of life of patients in Norway. I. Results from a self-administered questionnaire. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2001;79(2):116–120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McNaught AI, Allen JG, Healey DL, et al. Accuracy and implications of a reported family history of glaucoma: experience from the Glaucoma Inheritance Study in Tasmania. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(7):900–904.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Green CM, Kearns LS, Wu J, et al. How significant is a family history of glaucoma? Experience from the Glaucoma Inheritance Study in Tasmania. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2007;35(9):793–799.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Marx J. Genetics. High-risk glaucoma gene found in Nordic studies. Science. 2007;317(5839):735.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Asrani S, Zeimer R, Wilensky J, et al. Large diurnal fluctuations in intraocular pressure are an independent risk factor in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2000;9(2):134–142.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Danesh-Meyer HV, Niederer R, Gaskin BJ, Gamble G. Comparison of the Proview pressure phosphene tonometer performed by the patient and examiner with the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2004;32(1):29–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gunvant P, Lievens CW, Newman JM 3rd, et al. Evaluation of some factors affecting the agreement between the Proview Eye Pressure Monitor and the Goldmann applanation tonometer measurements. Clin Exp Optom. 2007;90(4):290–295.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Abraham LM, Epasinghe NC, Selva D, Casson R. Comparison of the ICare rebound tonometer with the Goldmann applanation tonometer by experienced and inexperienced tonometrists. Eye. 2008;22(4):503–506.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Susanna R Jr, Vessani RM, Sakata L, et al. The relation between intraocular pressure peak in the water drinking test and visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(10):1298–1301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Danesh-Meyer HV, Papchenko T, Tan YW, Gamble GD. Medically controlled glaucoma patients show greater increase in intraocular pressure than surgically controlled patients with the water drinking test. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(9):1566–1570.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kumar RS, de Guzman MH, Ong PY, Goldberg I. Does peak intraocular pressure measured by water drinking test reflect peak circadian levels? A pilot study. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2008;36(4):312–315.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schmidt K. Untersuchungen über Kapillarendothelstörungen bei Glaukoma simplex. Arch Augenheilkd 1928(98):569–581Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Leydhecker W. The water-drinking test. Br J Ophthalmol. 1950;34(8):457–479.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pitchon E, Leonardi M, Renaud P, et al. First in vivo human measure of the intraocular pressure fluctuation and ocular pulsation by a wireless soft contact lens sensor. Abstracts of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2008 Annual Meeting; April 27-May 1, 2008; Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Abstract 687, 2008.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Downs J, Burgoyne CF, Liang Y, Sallee VL. A new implantable system for telemetric IOP monitoring in nonhuman primates (NHP). Program and abstracts of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2008 Annual Meeting. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Abstract 2043, 2008Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Aebersold J, Jackson D, Crain M, et al. Development of an implantable, RFID-based intraocular pressure sensing system for glaucoma patients. Program and abstracts of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2008 Annual Meeting. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Abstract 688, 2008Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Weinreb RN, Friedman DS, Fechtner RD, et al. Risk assessment in the management of patients with ocular hypertension. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138(3):458–467.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120(6):701-713; discussion 829–830PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goni FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92(4):569–573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Spry PG, Johnson CA. Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Surv Ophthalmol. 2002;47(2):158–173.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Aulhorn E, Karmeyer H. Frequency distribution in early glaucomatous visual field defects. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser. 1977;14:75–83.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hodapp E, Parrish RI, Anderson D. Clinical decisions in glaucoma, 52-61 ed. St. Louis, MO: CV Mosby; 1993.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mills RP, Budenz DL, Lee PP, et al. Categorizing the stage of glaucoma from pre-diagnosis to end-stage disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141(1):24–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Brusini P, Filacorda S. Enhanced glaucoma staging system (GSS 2) for classifying functional damage in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2006;15(1):40–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Katz J. Scoring systems for measuring progression of visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment. Ophthalmology. 1999;106(2):391–395.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bengtsson B, Heijl A. A visual field index for calculation of glaucoma rate of progression. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145(2):343–353.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Peridata. Available at: Accessed September 4, 2008
  63. 63.
    Artes PH, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Visual field progression in glaucoma: total versus pattern deviation analyses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(12):4600–4606.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Owen VM, Crabb DP, White ET, et al. Glaucoma and fitness to drive: using binocular visual fields to predict a milestone to blindness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(6):2449–2455.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, Viswanathan AC. A practical approach to measuring the visual field component of fitness to drive. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(9):1191–1196.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ventura LM, Sorokac N. De Los Santos R, et al. The relationship between retinal ganglion cell function and retinal nerve fiber thickness in early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(9):3904–3911.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ventura LM, Porciatti V. Restoration of retinal ganglion cell function in early glaucoma after intraocular pressure reduction: a pilot study. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(1):20–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Cordeiro MF, Guo L, Luong V, et al. Real-time imaging of single nerve cell apoptosis in retinal neurodegeneration. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101(36):13352–13356.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
  70. 70.
  71. 71.
    Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al. Treatment outcomes in the tube versus trabeculectomy study after one year of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(1):9–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Spaeth G, Walt J, Keener J. Evaluation of quality of life for patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141(1 Suppl):S3-S14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Nelson P, Aspinall P, Papasouliotis O, et al. Quality of life in glaucoma and its relationship with visual function. J Glaucoma. 2003;12(2):139–150.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Banes MJ, Culham LE, Bunce C, et al. Agreement between optometrists and ophthalmologists on clinical management decisions for patients with glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(5):579–585.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Gray SF, Spry PG, Brookes ST, et al. The Bristol shared care glaucoma study: outcome at follow up at 2 years. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84(5):456–463.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ridia Lim
    • 1
  • Ivan Goldberg
    • 2
  1. 1.Glaucoma DepartmentSydney Eye HospitalSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyEye Associates, Sydney Eye Hospital, University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations