Lima-Gómez V, Colas-Calvere MG, Razo Blanco-Hernández DM

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 406-410
PDF size: 118.53 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: risk of retinal damage in open globe eye injuries increases as the zone (location of the wound vertex) is more rearward. The value of clinical exploration to assess this variable is unknown.
Objective: to establish the efficacy of clinical exploration as a diagnostic test to identify the injury zone in open globe ocular trauma.
Methods: assessment of patients with open globe ocular trauma, preoperative clinical assessment of injury zone and surgical description of the wound were carried out. The proportion and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of eyes whose zone changed during surgical repair were established, and the efficacy of clinical evaluation to diagnose zone was estimated. Features of eyes with and without zone change were compared using χ² test.
Results: 89 eyes, mean age 27.1 years. Clinically, the identified zone was I in 36 eyes (40.4%), II in 38 (31.5%) and III in 25 (28.1%); the identified zone during surgery was I in 36 eyes (40.4%), II in 43 (48.3%) and III in 10 (11.2%). Zone changed in 30 eyes (34%, 95% C.I. 24 to 44). Specificity (96%), positive predictive value (93%) and positive likelihood ratio (13.9) were high only for zone II. No feature was associated with zone change.
Conclusions: clinical exploration was not efficient enough to identify injury zone in open globe trauma and has low prognostic value. It is not necessary to define the injury zone at first contact; it is enough identifying properly the agent, visual function and pupil reflexes for an efficient assessment.

REFERENCES

1. Shah A, Blackhall K, Ker K, Patel D. Educational interventions for the prevention of eye injuries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;4:CD006527.

2. Pieramici DJ, Sternberg P Jr, Aaberg TM, Bridges WZ, Capone A, Cardillo JA, et al. A system for classifying mechanical injuries of the eye (globe). The Ocular Trauma Classification Group. Am J Ophthalmol 1997;123:820-831.

3. Razo Blanco-Hernández DM, Lima-Gómez V. Fuentes de error en la aplicación del sistema de clasificación de lesiones mecánicas oculares. Cir Ciruj 2010;78:381-386.

4. Kuhn F, Maisiak R, Mann L, Mester V, Morris R, Whiterspoon CD. The Ocular Trauma Score (OTS). Ophthalmol Clin N Am 2002;15:163-165.

5. Schrader WF, Viestenz A. Schwere Bulbus eröffnende Augenverletzungen. Aktuelle Behandlungskonzepte. Ophthalmologe 2008;105:965-975.

6. Warrasak S, Euswas A, Hongsakorn S. Posterior segment trauma: types of injuries, result of vitreo-retinal surgery and prophylactic broad encircling scleral buckle. J Med Assoc Thai 2005;88:1916- 1930.

7. Rouberol F, Denis P, Romanet JP, Chiquet C. Comparative study if 50 early - or late-onset retinal detachments after open or closed globe injury. Retina 2011;31:en prensa.

8. Sobaci G, Mutlu M, Bayer A, Karakgûl S, Yildirim E. Deadly weapon-related open-globe injuries: outcome assessment by the ocular trauma classification system. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;129:47-53.

9. Rofail M, Lee G, O’Rourke O. Prognostic indicators for open globe injury. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2006;34:783-786.

10. Pieramici DJ, Kah-Guan AE, Sternberg P, Marsh MJ. The prognostic significance of a system for classifying mechanical injuries of the eye (globe) in open-globe injuries. J Trauma 2003;54:750-754.

11. Globocnik PM, Lumi X, Drnovsek OB. Prognostic factors in open eye injury managed with vitrectomy: retrospective study. Croat Med J 2004;45:299-303.

12. Al-Mezaine HS, Osman EA, Kanvage D, El-Asrar AMA. Prognostic factors after repair of open globe injuries. J Trauma 2010;69:943- 947.

13. Rao LG, Ninan A, Rao KA. Descriptive study of ocular survival, visual outcome and prognostic factors in open globe injuries. Indian J Ophthalmol 2010;58:321-323.

14. Knyazer B, Levy J, Rosen S, Belgfair N, Klemperer I, Lifshitz T. Prognostic factors in posterior open globe injuries (zone-III injuries). Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2008;36:836-841.