Fifteen-year trends in indications for enucleation from a tertiary care center in South India.
Аннотация
AIM: To analyze the trends in clinicopathologic indications for enucleations over a 15-year period.
MATERIALS AND
METHODS
Clinicopathologic details of all eyes that underwent enucleation from January 1996 to December 2010 were drawn up from a computerized database. The study was divided into three periods of 5 years each and comparison tables for each cause of enucleation during these periods were generated. Chi-square test was used to compare proportions.
RESULTS
Out of a total 1467 enucleations performed during the study period, 693 (46%) were attributable to retinoblastoma, 189 (12.5%) to uveal melanoma, 228 (15%) to trauma, and 149 (10%) to phthisis bulbi. Intraocular tumors accounted for more than 63% of all enucleations performed. Over the three time periods, proportion of enucleations secondary to retinoblastoma increased from 38% in the 1 st period to 58% in the 3 rd period (P < 0.001). Enucleations for trauma showed statistically significant reduction in trends over the three periods (24% in the 1 st period vs. 4.4% in the 3 rd period, P < 0.001). Similar trends were also seen in the proportion of enucleations due to intractable glaucoma and chronic uveitis. The absolute number of enucleations secondary to retinoblastoma out of the total cases seen during the study period did not change over the three periods (range 51-60%).
CONCLUSION
Intraocular tumors were the commonest indications for enucleation in our patient population despite the availability of globe-conserving treatments such as chemotherapy and radioactive plaques. We observed increasing trends in the proportion of enucleations due to retinoblastoma and reduction of enucleations secondary to trauma, chronic uveitis, and glaucoma.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.