Mechanical Eye Trauma Epidemiology, Prognostic Factors, and Management Controversies—An Update

Purpose of Review: The management of eye injuries is both difficult and argumentative. This study attempts to highlight the management of ocular trauma using currently available information in the literature and author experience. This review presents a workable framework from the first presentation, epidemiology, classification, investigations, management principles, complications, prognostic factors, final visual outcome and management debates. Review Findings: Mechanical ocular trauma is a leading cause of monocular blindness and possible handicap worldwide. Among several classification systems, the most widely accepted is Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology (BETT). Mechanical ocular trauma is a topic of unsolved controversy. Patching for corneal abrasion, paracentesis for hyphema, the timing of cataract surgery and intraocular lens implantation are all issues in anterior segment injuries. Regarding posterior segment controversies, the timing of vitrectomy, use of prophylactic cryotherapy, the necessity of intravitreal antibiotics in the absence of infection, the use of vitrectomy vs vitreous tap in traumatic endophthalmitis is the issues. The pediatric age group needs to be approached by a different protocol due to the risk of amblyopia, intraocular inflammation, and significant vitreoretinal adhesions. The various prognostic factors have a role in the final visual outcome. B scan is used to exclude R.D, Intraocular foreign body (IOFB), and vitreous haemorrhage in hazy media. Individual surgical strategies are used for every patient according to the classification and extent of the injuries. Conclusion: This article examines relevant evidence on the management challenges and controversies of mechanical trauma of the eye and offers treatment recommendations based on published research and the authors’ own experience.

Explosive eye injuries: characteristics, traumatic mechanisms, and prognostic factors for poor visual outcomes

Background: Explosions can produce blast waves, high-speed medium, thermal radiation, and chemical spatter,leading to complex and compound eye injuries. However, few studies have comprehensively investigated the clinical features of different eye injury types or possible risk factors for poor prognosis.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive records of explosive eye injuries(1449 eyes in 1115 inpatients)in 14 tertiary referral hospitals in China over 12 years(between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2019). Data on demographics, eye injury types, ocular findings, treatments, and factors affecting visual prognosis were extracted from a standardized database of eye injuries and statistically analyzed.Results: Mechanical ocular trauma accounted for 94.00% of explosion-related eye injuries, among which intraocular foreign bodies(IOFBs) resulted in 55.17% of open globe injuries(OGIs) and contusion caused 60.22% of close globe injuries(CGIs). Proliferative vitreous retinopathy(PVR) was more common in perforating(47.06%) and IOFB(26.84%)than in penetrating(8.79%) injuries, and more common with laceration(24.25%) than rupture(9.22%, P<0.01).However, no difference was observed between rupture and contusion. Ultimately, 9.59% of eyes were removed and the final vision was ≤4/200 in 45.82% of patients. Poor presenting vision [odds ratio(OR)=5.789], full-thickness laceration of the eyeball ≥5 mm(OR=3.665), vitreous hemorrhage(OR=3.474), IOFB(OR=3.510), non-mechanical eye injury(NMEI, OR=2.622), rupture(OR=2.362), traumatic optic neuropathy(OR=2.102), retinal detachment(RD,OR=2.033), endophthalmitis(OR=3.281), contusion(OR=1.679), ciliary body detachment(OR=6.592), zone Ⅲ OGI(OR=1.940), and PVR(OR=1.615) were significant negative predictors for poor visual outcomes(P<0.05).Conclusions: Explosion ocular trauma has complex mechanisms, with multiple eyes involved and poor prognosis. In lethal level Ⅰ explosion injuries, eyeball rupture is a serious condition, whereas contusion is more likely to improve. In level Ⅱ injuries, IOFBs are more harmful than penetrating injuries, and level Ⅳ represents burn-related eye injuries.PVR is more associated with penetrating mechanisms than with OGI. Identifying the risk predictors for visual prognosis can guide clinicians in the evaluation and treatment of ocular blast injuries.