Eye (London, England) · 2019
Outcomes of ocular evisceration and enucleation in the British Armed Forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Holmes Christopher J, McLaughlin Anthony, Farooq Tahir, Awad John, Murray Aidan, Scott Robert
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes from all British military patients who underwent eye removal during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
SUBJECTS/METHODS: Retrospective case note review of all patients (n = 19) who had undergone either evisceration or enucleation, on a database of all military patients repatriated to the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham.
RESULTS: Twenty eye removals were performed on 19 patients, of which 14 (70%) were eviscerations and 6 (30%) were enucleations. Orbital wall fractures were seen in 12 (61%) patients, with orbital floor fractures being the most common. The eye removal was a primary procedure in five of fourteen eviscerations, and five of six enucleations. Complications were seen after four (28.6%) eviscerations patients and two (33.3%) enucleations. Postoperative pain was problematic after three (21.4%) eviscerations but no enucleations. Orbital implants were placed during three of the five primary enucleations, with good outcomes in two. One patient however required implant retrieval and wound washout due to a high risk of infection and communication with the intra-cranial space.
CONCLUSIONS: Evisceration and enucleation are both viable options in the management of severe ocular trauma in military patients. Evisceration and enucleation have similar complication rates and outcomes, and both have low rates of sympathetic ophthalmia. Primary orbital implants can be at high risk in cases with orbital roof fracture, but can provide good outcomes in select patients.
SUBJECTS/METHODS: Retrospective case note review of all patients (n = 19) who had undergone either evisceration or enucleation, on a database of all military patients repatriated to the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham.
RESULTS: Twenty eye removals were performed on 19 patients, of which 14 (70%) were eviscerations and 6 (30%) were enucleations. Orbital wall fractures were seen in 12 (61%) patients, with orbital floor fractures being the most common. The eye removal was a primary procedure in five of fourteen eviscerations, and five of six enucleations. Complications were seen after four (28.6%) eviscerations patients and two (33.3%) enucleations. Postoperative pain was problematic after three (21.4%) eviscerations but no enucleations. Orbital implants were placed during three of the five primary enucleations, with good outcomes in two. One patient however required implant retrieval and wound washout due to a high risk of infection and communication with the intra-cranial space.
CONCLUSIONS: Evisceration and enucleation are both viable options in the management of severe ocular trauma in military patients. Evisceration and enucleation have similar complication rates and outcomes, and both have low rates of sympathetic ophthalmia. Primary orbital implants can be at high risk in cases with orbital roof fracture, but can provide good outcomes in select patients.