J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2012 Mar;53(3):460-465.

The Surgical Outcome of Metallic Intraocular Foreign Body due to Trauma

• Kim KT
• Chae JB

Abstract

PURPOSE
To investigate the outcome of surgery for a metallic intraocular foreign body and prognostic factors for visual acuity.
METHODS
A retrospective chart review was performed on 47 eyes of 47 patients who underwent surgical removal of a metallic intraocular foreign body (IOFB) after eyeball laceration between 2000 and 2010. We investigated the location and size of eyeball lacerations, the location of IOFB, the clinical findings at initial examination, surgical methods and best corrected visual acuity. We analyzed the prognostic factors for final visual acuity.
RESULTS
The mean age was 45 years, and the most common cause of IOFB was lawnmower use. Cornea (77%) was the most frequently involved structure, and hyphema (72%) was the most common finding at initial slit lamp examination. Retina was the most common site of IOFB. The average visual acuity was 0.17 +/- 0.49 before surgery, and the final visual acuity was 0.23 +/- 0.39. Good visual prognosis was observed when the initial visual acuity was good or when the IOFB was located in the anterior segment, but the prognosis was poor when there was a vitreous opacity compromised with endophthalmitis at initial examination.
CONCLUSIONS
An IOFB should be removed as soon as possible. Good initial visual acuity and anterior segment IOFB are good prognostic factors of visual outcome.

Keyword

Metallic intraocular foreign body; Prognostic factor; Visual acuity

MeSH Terms

Cornea
Endophthalmitis
Eye
Foreign Bodies
Humans
Hyphema
Lacerations
Prognosis
Retina
Retrospective Studies
Visual Acuity

Reference

1. Negrel AD, Thylefors B. The global impact of eye injuries. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1998. 5:143–169.

2. Hwang JH, Kweon EY, Cho NC. Comparison of approaches for the removal of metallic intraocular foreign bodies. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2010. 51:270–275.

3. Mester V, Kuhn F. Ferrous intraocular foreign bodies retained in the posterior segment: Management options and results. Int Ophthalmol. 1998. 22:355–362.

4. Chow DR, Garretson BR, Kuczynski B, et al. External versus internal approach to the removal of metallic intraocular foreign bodies. Retina. 2000. 20:364–369.

5. Ehlers JP, Kunimoto DY, Ittoop S, et al. Metallic intraocular foreign bodies: characteristics, interventions, and prognostic factors for visual outcome and globe survival. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008. 146:427–433.

6. Kanoff JM, Turalba AV, Andreoli MT, Andreoli CM. Characteristics and outcomes of work-related open globe injuries. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010. 150:265–269.

7. Azad R, Ravi K, Talwar D, et al. Pars plana vitrectomy with or without silicone oil endotamponade in post-traumatic endophthalmitis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2003. 241:478–483.

8. Brinton GS, Topping TM, Hyndiuk RA, et al. Posttraumatic endophthalmitis. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984. 102:547–550.

9. Barr CC. Prognostic factors in corneoscleral lacerations. Arch Ophthalmol. 1983. 101:919–924.

10. Bohigian GM, Olk RJ. Factors associated with a poor visual result in endophthalmitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 1986. 101:332–341.

11. Bhagat N, Nagori S, Zarbin M. Post-traumatic Infectious Endophthalmitis. Surv Ophthalmol. 2011. 56:214–251.

12. Yang CS, Lu CK, Lee FL, et al. Treatment and outcome of traumatic endophthalmitis in open globe injury with retained intraocular foreign body. Ophthalmologica. 2010. 224:79–85.

13. Wickham L, Xing W, Bunce C, Sullivan P. Outcomes of surgery for posterior segment intraocular foreign bodies--a retrospective review of 17 years of clinical experience. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006. 244:1620–1626.