Comparison of Approaches for the Removal of Metallic Intraocular Foreign Bodies.
10.3341/jkos.2010.51.2.270
- Author:
Jeong Ho HWANG
1
;
Eui Yong KWEON
;
Nam Chun CHO
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, Chonbuk National University Medical School, Junju, Korea. cnauo@moak.chonbuk.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Electromagnet;
External approach;
Internal approach;
Intraocular foreign body;
Vitrectomy
- MeSH:
Cataract;
Endophthalmitis;
Eye;
Foreign Bodies;
Humans;
Magnets;
Outcome Assessment (Health Care);
Postoperative Complications;
Reoperation;
Retinal Detachment;
Retrospective Studies;
Visual Acuity;
Vitrectomy;
Vitreous Hemorrhage
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2010;51(2):270-275
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To review the management of posterior segment metallic intraocular foreign bodies (IOFB) and to compare the use of an external approach using a large electromagnet and an internal approach using vitrectomy and its tools for their removal. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 49 eyes of 49 patients who underwent surgical removal of metallic IOFBs with either an internal or an external approach at a single institution between January 2003 and December 2006. We divided 49 eyes into two groups based on the type of approach: 26 external (n=26) and 23 internal (n=23). Visual acuity and the presence of any complications occurring with the two approaches were the main outcome measures studied. RESULTS: Thirty of 49 eyes (61%) showed improvements in visual acuity. When we compared patients treated with an external versus an internal approach, we found no statistically significant difference in regard to visual outcome. Preoperative vitreous hemorrhage and endophthalmitis were more common in the internal approach group. A trend toward a higher rate of reoperation was more common in the external approach group, but they were not statistically significant. Postoperative complications found to be significantly different between the two groups were the rate of postoperative endophthalmitis and retinal detachment, which were more common in the external approach group. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical removal of metallic IOFBs results in significant visual improvement regardless of the approach method. The internal approach by vitrectomy is recommended as the first choice in preoperative conditions such as severe cataracts, vitreous hemorrhage and endophthalmitis, as well as in groups at high risk for postoperative endophalmitis and retinal detachment.
