Retinal cases & brief reports · 2013
Caterpillar setae penetration in an eye: long-term follow-up.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Lipkova Blandina, Gajdosova Eva, Kacerik Marek, Duranova Maria, Izak Milan G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To report the results of 9 years of follow-up after caterpillar setae penetration into a child's eye.
METHODS: The clinical course of caterpillar setae penetrating an eye and their migration will be described. Initially confined to the anterior segment (conjunctiva, cornea), they later migrated to the anterior chamber and iris toward the posterior pole. Management included treatment of the associated recurrent uveitis and repeated surgical interventions including pars plana vitrectomy.
PATIENTS: Ten-year-old boy at the time of the initial eye injury.
RESULTS: It was not possible to completely remove the caterpillar setae that had penetrated the conjunctiva and cornea. Later attempts to remove the setae from the anterior chamber and the vitreous by pars plana vitrectomy were also unsuccessful. Argon laser photocoagulation was performed around the setae, which later reached the retina, but did not prevent their further migration.
CONCLUSION: Management of an eye injury caused by caterpillar setae is problematic because they are almost impossible to remove from eye tissue. Setae have a tendency to migrate in the eye. It requires long-term follow-up, conservative management of recurrent uveitis, as well as repeated surgical interventions.
METHODS: The clinical course of caterpillar setae penetrating an eye and their migration will be described. Initially confined to the anterior segment (conjunctiva, cornea), they later migrated to the anterior chamber and iris toward the posterior pole. Management included treatment of the associated recurrent uveitis and repeated surgical interventions including pars plana vitrectomy.
PATIENTS: Ten-year-old boy at the time of the initial eye injury.
RESULTS: It was not possible to completely remove the caterpillar setae that had penetrated the conjunctiva and cornea. Later attempts to remove the setae from the anterior chamber and the vitreous by pars plana vitrectomy were also unsuccessful. Argon laser photocoagulation was performed around the setae, which later reached the retina, but did not prevent their further migration.
CONCLUSION: Management of an eye injury caused by caterpillar setae is problematic because they are almost impossible to remove from eye tissue. Setae have a tendency to migrate in the eye. It requires long-term follow-up, conservative management of recurrent uveitis, as well as repeated surgical interventions.