PURPOSE: To report a case of an occult, metallic, anterior-chamber intraocula r foreign body after uneventful phacoemulsification that was masquerading as chr onic recalcitrant postoperative inflammation. DESIGN: Inte...PURPOSE: To report a case of an occult, metallic, anterior-chamber intraocula r foreign body after uneventful phacoemulsification that was masquerading as chr onic recalcitrant postoperative inflammation. DESIGN: Interventional case report . METHODS: A 73-year-old patient was referred to us for recalcitrant anterior -chamber inflammation after uneventful phacoemulsification; the patient present ed with visual disturbances, anterior-chamber inflammation, and macular epireti nal membrane with concomitant cystoid macular edema. RESULTS: After meticulous e valuations and repeated clinical examinations, a metallic intraocular foreign bo dy was discovered on the iris, which was surgically removed and analyzed. Chemic al analysis revealed copper, aluminum, and zinc. Pars plana vitrectomy with epir etinal membrane and indocyaninegreen-assisted internal limiting membrane peelin g followed, with subsequent improvement of visual acuity. CONCLUSIONS: Intraocul ar foreign bodies should always be considered in the differential diagnosis of r ecalcitrant inflammation postphacoemulsification. However, in the absence of int raocular inflammation, surgical removal of such particles is questionable.展开更多
文摘PURPOSE: To report a case of an occult, metallic, anterior-chamber intraocula r foreign body after uneventful phacoemulsification that was masquerading as chr onic recalcitrant postoperative inflammation. DESIGN: Interventional case report . METHODS: A 73-year-old patient was referred to us for recalcitrant anterior -chamber inflammation after uneventful phacoemulsification; the patient present ed with visual disturbances, anterior-chamber inflammation, and macular epireti nal membrane with concomitant cystoid macular edema. RESULTS: After meticulous e valuations and repeated clinical examinations, a metallic intraocular foreign bo dy was discovered on the iris, which was surgically removed and analyzed. Chemic al analysis revealed copper, aluminum, and zinc. Pars plana vitrectomy with epir etinal membrane and indocyaninegreen-assisted internal limiting membrane peelin g followed, with subsequent improvement of visual acuity. CONCLUSIONS: Intraocul ar foreign bodies should always be considered in the differential diagnosis of r ecalcitrant inflammation postphacoemulsification. However, in the absence of int raocular inflammation, surgical removal of such particles is questionable.
