Indications for Therapy

  • George L. Spaeth


This chapter will broadly examine considerations about how to approach the treatment of those who wish to remain healthy or have their existing disease eliminated, or, at the least, prevented from getting worse. Those seeking care will be called “patients,” even though that word itself implies that the patient is less knowledgeable and less powerful than the physician, which results in a self-fulfilling prophecy: specifically, that doctors act as if they know more and patients act as if they know less. There are aspects related to health and disease about which physicians are expected to be more knowledgeable than patients. However, only the patient knows what he or she wants, and only the patient has the power to care for himself or herself. As such, then, patients have many powers that physicians do not have; recognizing this is essential for both the patient and the physician if the appropriate goal - health - is to be achieved. Nevertheless, not being able to use the word “patient” introduces such awkwardness in language that there is no other practical option.


Intraocular Pressure Retinal Ganglion Cell Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Visual Field Loss Neovascular Glaucoma 
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.
    Altangerel U, Spaeth GL, Steinmann WC. Assessment of function related to vision (AFREV). Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2006;13:67–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gutierrez P, Wilson MR, Johnson C, et al. Influence of glaucomatous visual field loss on health-related quality of life. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:777–784.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    West SK, Munoz B, et al. Function and visual impairment in a population-based study of older adults. The SEE project. Salisbury Eye Evaluation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38(1):72–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Freeman EE, Muñoz B, West SK, Jampel HD, Friedman DS. Glaucoma and quality of life: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:233–238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klein BE, Klein R, Lee KE, Cruickshanks KJ. Performance-based and self-assessed measures of visual function as related to history of falls, hip fractures, and measured gait time. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(1):160–164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lamoreux EL, Chong E, Wang JJ, et al. Visual impairment, causes of vision loss, and falls: the Singapore Malay Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:528–533.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lorenzana L, Lankaranian D, Dugar J, et al. A new method of assessing ability to perform activities of daily living: design, methods and baseline data. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2009;16(2):107–114.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bigger JF. A comparison of patient compliance in treated versus untreated ocular hypertension. Trans Sect Ophthalmol Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1976;81(2):277–285.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Coleman AL, et al. Predictive factors for glaucomatous visual field progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1627–1635.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jonas JB, Martus P, Horn FK, Jünemann A, Korth M, Budde WM. Predictive factors of the optic nerve head for development or progression of glaucomatous visual field loss. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45(8):2613–2618.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Gaasterland D, Caprioli J. Prediction of visual field progression in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:528–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Read RM, Spaeth GL. The practical clinical appraisal of the optic disc in glaucoma: the natural history of cup progression and some specific disc-field correlations. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1974;78:OP255-OP274.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR, Green WR. Retinal ganglion cell atrophy correlated with automated perimetry in human eyes with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;107(5):453–464.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goñi FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:569–573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spaeth GL, Henderer J, Steinmann W. The Disc Damage Likelihood Scale (DDLS): its use in the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. Highlights Ophthalmol. 2003;31:4–19.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Caprioli J, Garway-Heath DF, International Glaucoma Think Tank. A critical reevaluation of current glaucoma management: International Glaucoma Think Tank. July 27-29, 2006, Taormina, Sicily. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(suppl):S1-S41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, Poinoosawmy D, McNaught AI, Crabb DP. Analysis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80(1):40–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Armaly MF. The optic cup in the normal eye. I. Cup width, depth, vessel displacement, ocular tension and outflow facility. Am J Ophthalmol. 1969;68(3):401–407.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jonas JB, Stürmer J, Papastathopoulos KI, Meier-Gibbons F, Dichtl A. Optic disc size and optic nerve damage in normal pressure glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1995;79(12):1102–1105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Henderer JD, Liu C, Kesen M, et al. Reliability of the Disk Damage Likelihood Scale. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135(1):44–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bayer A, Harasymowycz P, Henderer JD, Steinmann WG, Spaeth GL. Validity of a new disk grading scale for estimating glaucomatous damage: correlation with visual field damage. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133(6):758–763.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spaeth GL, Henderer J, Liu C, et al. The Disc Damage Likelihood Scale: reproducibility of a new method of estimating the amount of optic nerve damage caused by glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2002;100:181-185. discussion 5–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Danesh-Meyer H, Ku J, Papchenko T, Jayasundera T, Hsiang J, Gamble G. Regional correlation of structure and function in glaucoma, using the Disc Damage Likelihood Scale, Heidelberg retina tomograph, and visual fields. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:603–611.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hornova J, Kuntz Navarro JBV, Prasad A, Freitas DGJ, Nunes CM. Correlation of Disc Damage Likelihood Scale, visual field and Heidelberg retina tomograph II in patients with glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2008;18:739–747.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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;120:701–713.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heijl A, Leske C, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Hussein M, Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:1268–1279.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Glaucoma Laser Trial Research Group. The glaucoma laser trial (GLT) and glaucoma laser trial follow-up study: 7. Results. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;120(6):718.31.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee SJ, Lindquist K, Segal MR, Coninsky KE. Development and validation of a prognostic index for 4-year mortality in older adults. JAMA. 2006;295:801–808.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    AGIS Investigators: Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 4. Comparison of treatment outcomes within race: 7 yr results. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1146–1164.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, et al. CIGTS Study Group: Interim Clinical Outcomes in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS) comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1943–1953.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grant WM, Burke JF. Why do some people go blind from glaucoma? Ophthalmology. 1982;89:991–998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • George L. Spaeth
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyWills Eye Institute, Jefferson Medical CollegePhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations