Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose: “Central corneal thickness (CCT)” and Intra ocular pressure (IOP) analyze the effect on “primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) and primary angle closure glaucoma (PACG)” and to correlate the effect of POAG and PACG on IOP and CCT.research is very much important for the public health and we can give the less time consuming diagnostic point of thinking for easily diffrenciating the primarry angle closure glaucoma from the primary open angle glaucoma and the diagnosis can be made easily on the less point to think over glaucoma. Methods: In this prospective study we recorded the “central corneal thickness” and IOP on PACG and POAG patients with the help of applanation tonometry and pachymetry. CCT and IOP of the POAG and PACG patients compare, IOP taken between 9 AM to 11 AM. Results: Total patients in our study were 40 patients; in this20 patients were of POAG and 20 patients of PACG. Mean age of males was 54.5 years and female was 47.0 years. CCT was thicker in PACG eyes and thinner in POAG eyes. In PACG females were more affected and in POAG males were more affected.A total of 40 patients including 21 male and 19 females subjects. The mean age of males was 54.5 years and of females was 47.0 years age group of (50 to 60 more affected by PACG, and 40-50 age group patients more affected by POAG). In PACG females were more affected (14 out of 19) and in POAG males were more affected (15 out of 21) in our study we consider CCT 510-540 µm in thinning central corneal thickness, 540 to 560 µm normal CCT and 560 -600 µm central corneal thickness consider thick and more than >600 µm central corneal thickness more thick. Conclusion: PACG eyes had raised IOP in comparison to POAG eyes. PACG eyes had thicker central corneal thickness as compared to POAG.in primary angle closure glaucoma the cct readings will be less then normal and IOP readings will be high but comparitively the in open angle glaucoma both cct and IOP would would be normal.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: