Lima-Gómez V, Góngora-Bobadilla VJ

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 251-257
PDF size: 127.84 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: We identified whether ocular trauma presentation, according to the system for classifying mechanical injuries of the eye, had modifications among different age groups, which could be useful as damage predictors during the initial evaluation of these patients.
Material and methods: Ocular trauma referrals between 1995 and 2003 were re-qualified according to the system for classifying mechanical injuries. Patients were divided into 5-year groups and the most frequent categories of type, grade, pupil and zone were determined by group. Mean age of each category and the rate of categories between groups were compared (ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis, χ² and odds ratio [OR]).
Results: Five hundred sixty-six eyes of 551 patients were evaluated (age: 0.5-90 years, mean age: 27.7); mean age was lower for type B closed globe trauma and zone II (p ‹ 0.05). There was a higher rate of grade 1 in patients ‹ 60 years (OR 3.8), of grade 4 in patients ⊒ 54 years (OR 3.25) and of type B closed globe in patients ‹ 20 years (OR 3.3). The remaining comparisons showed no clinical differences.
Conclusions: There were no significant modifications in the presentation of most of the categories between age groups. Age difference was not useful as a predictor for detecting traumatic ocular damage.

REFERENCES

1. Wong TY, Klein BE, Klein R. The prevalence and 5-year incidence of ocular trauma. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2000; 107:2196-2202.

2. 2. Kuhn F, Pieramici D. Ocular trauma. Principles and practice. New York: Thieme; 2002.

3. 3. McCarty CA, Fu CLH, Taylor HR. Epidemiology of ocular trauma in Australia. Ophthalmology 1999;106:1847-1852.

4. 4. Loncarek K, Brajac I, Filipovic T, Caljkusik-Mance T, Stalekar H. Cost of treating preventable minor ocular injuries in Rijeka, Croatia. Croat Med J 2004;45:314-317.

5. 5. Thompson CG, Kumar N, Billson FA, Martin F. The aetiology of perforating ocular injuries in children. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:920-922.

6. 6. Tarelo SA, Salinas VOE. Traumatismo ocular infantil en población mexicana: prevalencia, manejo y resultado visual final. Rev Mex Oftalmol 2002;75:1-4.

7. 7. Ugalde-Palacios RJ, Ordaz-Favila JC, Salazar-León JA. Trauma ocular en niños: experiencia en el Instituto Nacional de Pediatría. Rev Mex Oftalmol 2000;74:11-16.

8. 8. Güemes SE. Traumatismos oculares en niños. Rev Mex Oftalmol 2002;76:15-17.

9. 9. Herrera de la Cruz P. Retina y vítreo. México: JGH Editores; 2000.

10. 10. Kuhn F, Morris R, Witherspoon D, Heinmann K, Jeffers JB, Treister G. A standardized classification of ocular trauma. Am J Opthalmol 1996;103:240-243.

11. 11. Pieramici DJ, Sternberg P, Aaberg TM, et al. A system for classifying mechanical injuries of the eye (globe). Am J Ophthalmol 1997;123:820-831.

12. 12. Lima GV, Caballero PM. Trauma ocular: distribución de acuerdo con la clasificación estandarizada. Trauma 2002;5:5-10.

13. 13. Mac Ewen CJ, Baines PS, Desai P. Eye injuries in children: the current picture. Br J Ophthalmol 1999;83:933-936.

14. 14. Karaman K, Gverovik-Antunika A, Rogosic V, Lakos K, Rozga A, Radokaj-Perko S. Epidemiology of adult ocular injuries in Split-Dalmatian County. Croat Med J 2004;45:304-309.

15. 15. Schrader W. Open globe injuries: epidemiological study of two eye clinics in Germany 1981-1999. Croat Med J 2004;45:268-274.

16. 16. Schrader WF. Epidemiologie bulbusöffnender Augenverletzungen: Analyse von 1026 Fällen über 18 Jahre. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 2004;221:629-635.