Clinical Study of Perforating Eye Injuries.
- Author:
Joong Tai KIM
1
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine Korea University, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- MeSH:
Cataract;
Corneal Perforation;
Explosive Agents;
Eye Injuries*;
Female;
Foreign Bodies;
Glass;
Hemorrhage;
Humans;
Hyphema;
Incidence;
Iridectomy;
Iris;
Iron;
Lacerations;
Male;
Occupational Injuries;
Prognosis;
Prolapse;
Uveitis;
Visual Acuity;
Wood
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
1982;23(3):645-654
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
This report is based on a statistical analysis of the records of 116 cases of perforating eye injuries among 39,721 patients who visited the eye department of the National Medical Center from 1971 to 1981. The results were as follows: 1. The incidence of perforating eye injuries was 0.3% of 39,721 patients and 8.7% of the ocular trauma. 2. Of patients with perforating eye injuries, 76.7% were male and 23.3% female. Perforated injuries peaked in the age group 10-19 years, with about 50% of the perforations incurred by patients in the age group 10-29 years. 3. Of perforating eye injuries, 51.7% were found in the right eye, whereas 43.1% were in the left eye. 5.2% had injuries in both eyes. 4. The corneal perforations were 60.3% of the injuries, while the scleral were 25%, and the corneoscleral 14.7%. 5. Of perforating injuries, 16.4% were caused by intraocular foreign bodies, 78.9% of which were magnetic 89.5% of the patients were males. 6. Of perforating eye injuries, 32.8% occurred in the fall and 13.8% in September. 7. The most common material(23.3%) which caused perforating injuries was metal or iron particles. 15.5% of perforating injuries were caused by broken glass, 9.5% by explosives, and 7.8% by wood splinters. 8. Associated ocular manifestations were as follows: subconjunctival hemorrhage 42.2%, prolapse of uveal tissue 37.9%, conjunctival laceration 29.3%, traumatic hyphema 27.6%, tra umatic cataract 25.9% and traumatic uveitis 17.2%. 9. Of perforating eye injuries, 57.4% were treated by surgical procedure, such as primary closure, iridectomy, replacement of the prolapsed iris, lens extraction and removal of intraocular foreign bodies. In 13.9% of injured eyes removal of the eye-ball was performed. 10. Only 19.8% of the injuries were restored to 0.6 or better and 64.0% to 0.1 or less. 11. The location of the perforation was not correlated with visual prognosis. Relatively good vision was restored in scleral perforation cases, while corneal perforations resulted in the worst vision(statistically not significant). 12. The restored visual acuity was better in occupational injuries than in nonoccupational ones(statistically not significant). 13. Better results were obtained in the cases involving magnetic intraocular foreign bodies than in those with non-magnetic ones(statistically not significant). 14. The more complications occurred, the worse vision became. 15. The cases(38) of restoration of visual acuity considered to be poor(< or =0.1) breakdown as fo llows(by cause): phthisis bulbi(18.6%), traumatic cataract(10.5%), corneal opacity(81.0%), and vitreous opacity(3.5%).
