Clinical presentation and outcomes following posterior segment IOFB

Purpose: To review the clinical features, causes of injury, types of foreign bodies, results of vitrectomy and prognostic factors in patients with posterior segment intraocular foreign bodies (IOFB). Methods: Study design: Retrospective review of clinical records. Study participants: 108 consecutive...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Harsha Bhattacharjee, Satyen Deka, Manab Jyoti Barman, Ronel Soibam, Sumita S Barthakur, Lokesh Jain
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2010-10-01
Series:Delhi Journal of Ophthalmology
Online Access:https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/0972-0200.377303
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850042611761414144
author Harsha Bhattacharjee
Satyen Deka
Manab Jyoti Barman
Ronel Soibam
Sumita S Barthakur
Lokesh Jain
author_facet Harsha Bhattacharjee
Satyen Deka
Manab Jyoti Barman
Ronel Soibam
Sumita S Barthakur
Lokesh Jain
author_sort Harsha Bhattacharjee
collection DOAJ
description Purpose: To review the clinical features, causes of injury, types of foreign bodies, results of vitrectomy and prognostic factors in patients with posterior segment intraocular foreign bodies (IOFB). Methods: Study design: Retrospective review of clinical records. Study participants: 108 consecutive patients with posterior segment IOFB presenting at the study hospital between 1994 and 2007; and treated with IOFB removal by intraocular forceps or electromagnet or combination of the two following vitrectomy. Outcome measures: Clinical presentations, investigations, surgical techniques, final anatomical and visual status and duration of follow up. Statistical analysis: Chi-squared test. Results: The commonest presenting feature was uniocular visual loss. Work place injuries while chiseling and hammering (67.5%, n=73) without protective eyewear were the commonest. Metallic IOFBs were significantly common at 77.16% (n=98). IOFBs were removed using intraocular magnet (74%, n=80), intraocular forceps (18.5%, n=20) or a combination of the two (7.4%, n=8). Final visual acuity of ≥20/120 was achieved in 32.4% (n=35) cases. Presence of Relative Afferent Pupillary Defect (RAPD) (p<0.001), posterior segment haemorrhage (p<0.001) and Retinal Detachment (RD) (p=0.045) at presentation implied bad prognosis. Conclusions: IOFBs were mostly occupational and preventable. Cases presenting with RAPD, posterior segment haemorrhage and RD had bad visual prognosis.
format Article
id doaj-art-6fab442448fb40e1a9bcb61c8d47afde
institution DOAJ
issn 0972-0200
2454-2784
language English
publishDate 2010-10-01
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
record_format Article
series Delhi Journal of Ophthalmology
spelling doaj-art-6fab442448fb40e1a9bcb61c8d47afde2025-08-20T02:55:30ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsDelhi Journal of Ophthalmology0972-02002454-27842010-10-01213424710.4103/0972-0200.377303Clinical presentation and outcomes following posterior segment IOFBHarsha BhattacharjeeSatyen DekaManab Jyoti BarmanRonel SoibamSumita S BarthakurLokesh JainPurpose: To review the clinical features, causes of injury, types of foreign bodies, results of vitrectomy and prognostic factors in patients with posterior segment intraocular foreign bodies (IOFB). Methods: Study design: Retrospective review of clinical records. Study participants: 108 consecutive patients with posterior segment IOFB presenting at the study hospital between 1994 and 2007; and treated with IOFB removal by intraocular forceps or electromagnet or combination of the two following vitrectomy. Outcome measures: Clinical presentations, investigations, surgical techniques, final anatomical and visual status and duration of follow up. Statistical analysis: Chi-squared test. Results: The commonest presenting feature was uniocular visual loss. Work place injuries while chiseling and hammering (67.5%, n=73) without protective eyewear were the commonest. Metallic IOFBs were significantly common at 77.16% (n=98). IOFBs were removed using intraocular magnet (74%, n=80), intraocular forceps (18.5%, n=20) or a combination of the two (7.4%, n=8). Final visual acuity of ≥20/120 was achieved in 32.4% (n=35) cases. Presence of Relative Afferent Pupillary Defect (RAPD) (p<0.001), posterior segment haemorrhage (p<0.001) and Retinal Detachment (RD) (p=0.045) at presentation implied bad prognosis. Conclusions: IOFBs were mostly occupational and preventable. Cases presenting with RAPD, posterior segment haemorrhage and RD had bad visual prognosis.https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/0972-0200.377303
spellingShingle Harsha Bhattacharjee
Satyen Deka
Manab Jyoti Barman
Ronel Soibam
Sumita S Barthakur
Lokesh Jain
Clinical presentation and outcomes following posterior segment IOFB
Delhi Journal of Ophthalmology
title Clinical presentation and outcomes following posterior segment IOFB
title_full Clinical presentation and outcomes following posterior segment IOFB
title_fullStr Clinical presentation and outcomes following posterior segment IOFB
title_full_unstemmed Clinical presentation and outcomes following posterior segment IOFB
title_short Clinical presentation and outcomes following posterior segment IOFB
title_sort clinical presentation and outcomes following posterior segment iofb
url https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/0972-0200.377303
work_keys_str_mv AT harshabhattacharjee clinicalpresentationandoutcomesfollowingposteriorsegmentiofb
AT satyendeka clinicalpresentationandoutcomesfollowingposteriorsegmentiofb
AT manabjyotibarman clinicalpresentationandoutcomesfollowingposteriorsegmentiofb
AT ronelsoibam clinicalpresentationandoutcomesfollowingposteriorsegmentiofb
AT sumitasbarthakur clinicalpresentationandoutcomesfollowingposteriorsegmentiofb
AT lokeshjain clinicalpresentationandoutcomesfollowingposteriorsegmentiofb