Lens injury in setting of Zone I and II open globe injuries

Purpose: To characterize visual outcomes in Zone I and II open globe injuries with lens involvement. Setting: Level 1 Trauma Center Hospital, Seattle WA. Design: Retrospective case series. Methods: Zone I and II open globe injuries between May 2009 and May 2018 were reviewed for lens involvement, de...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Brian W Chou, Shu Feng, Leona Ding, Raghu C Mudumbai
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2025-01-01
Series:Indian Journal of Ophthalmology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/IJO.IJO_986_24
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1841556827099103232
author Brian W Chou
Shu Feng
Leona Ding
Raghu C Mudumbai
author_facet Brian W Chou
Shu Feng
Leona Ding
Raghu C Mudumbai
author_sort Brian W Chou
collection DOAJ
description Purpose: To characterize visual outcomes in Zone I and II open globe injuries with lens involvement. Setting: Level 1 Trauma Center Hospital, Seattle WA. Design: Retrospective case series. Methods: Zone I and II open globe injuries between May 2009 and May 2018 were reviewed for lens involvement, demographic data, injury characteristics, associated ocular comorbidities, surgical details, and visual outcomes. Eyes with nontraumatic or surgical injuries, prior penetrating keratoplasty, or a history of cataract extraction were excluded. Visual outcomes were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis and Fisher’s exact tests. Results: A total of 145 Zone I and II globe injuries (63 without lens injury and 82 with lens injury) with at least 6 months of follow-up were included. Endophthalmitis was not identified in any patients without lens involvement, while 9 patients with lens injury (11%) developed endophthalmitis. Patients with lens injury demonstrated a more severe ocular trauma score (P = 0.003). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was significantly better (P = 0.03) in patients without lens injury compared to those with lens injury. The median (interquartile range) BCVA in the no-lens injury group was 20/40 (20/25 – 20/400), while in the lens injury group it was 20/80 (20/40-20/300). The location of intraocular lens (IOL) placement did not influence final visual acuity outcomes (P = 0.76). However, eyes left aphakic had worse BCVA compared to those that received a secondary IOL (P = 0.005). Conclusions: Open globe injuries with lens involvement are associated with worse visual prognosis. An increased rate of endophthalmitis may contribute to this difference. In eyes requiring secondary IOL placement, the location of the IOL did not affect final BCVA.
format Article
id doaj-art-e00cd191e7484eb69497ab426169499d
institution Kabale University
issn 0301-4738
1998-3689
language English
publishDate 2025-01-01
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
record_format Article
series Indian Journal of Ophthalmology
spelling doaj-art-e00cd191e7484eb69497ab426169499d2025-01-07T06:27:42ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsIndian Journal of Ophthalmology0301-47381998-36892025-01-01731596310.4103/IJO.IJO_986_24Lens injury in setting of Zone I and II open globe injuriesBrian W ChouShu FengLeona DingRaghu C MudumbaiPurpose: To characterize visual outcomes in Zone I and II open globe injuries with lens involvement. Setting: Level 1 Trauma Center Hospital, Seattle WA. Design: Retrospective case series. Methods: Zone I and II open globe injuries between May 2009 and May 2018 were reviewed for lens involvement, demographic data, injury characteristics, associated ocular comorbidities, surgical details, and visual outcomes. Eyes with nontraumatic or surgical injuries, prior penetrating keratoplasty, or a history of cataract extraction were excluded. Visual outcomes were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis and Fisher’s exact tests. Results: A total of 145 Zone I and II globe injuries (63 without lens injury and 82 with lens injury) with at least 6 months of follow-up were included. Endophthalmitis was not identified in any patients without lens involvement, while 9 patients with lens injury (11%) developed endophthalmitis. Patients with lens injury demonstrated a more severe ocular trauma score (P = 0.003). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was significantly better (P = 0.03) in patients without lens injury compared to those with lens injury. The median (interquartile range) BCVA in the no-lens injury group was 20/40 (20/25 – 20/400), while in the lens injury group it was 20/80 (20/40-20/300). The location of intraocular lens (IOL) placement did not influence final visual acuity outcomes (P = 0.76). However, eyes left aphakic had worse BCVA compared to those that received a secondary IOL (P = 0.005). Conclusions: Open globe injuries with lens involvement are associated with worse visual prognosis. An increased rate of endophthalmitis may contribute to this difference. In eyes requiring secondary IOL placement, the location of the IOL did not affect final BCVA.https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/IJO.IJO_986_24iolopen globetraumatic cataract
spellingShingle Brian W Chou
Shu Feng
Leona Ding
Raghu C Mudumbai
Lens injury in setting of Zone I and II open globe injuries
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology
iol
open globe
traumatic cataract
title Lens injury in setting of Zone I and II open globe injuries
title_full Lens injury in setting of Zone I and II open globe injuries
title_fullStr Lens injury in setting of Zone I and II open globe injuries
title_full_unstemmed Lens injury in setting of Zone I and II open globe injuries
title_short Lens injury in setting of Zone I and II open globe injuries
title_sort lens injury in setting of zone i and ii open globe injuries
topic iol
open globe
traumatic cataract
url https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/IJO.IJO_986_24
work_keys_str_mv AT brianwchou lensinjuryinsettingofzoneiandiiopenglobeinjuries
AT shufeng lensinjuryinsettingofzoneiandiiopenglobeinjuries
AT leonading lensinjuryinsettingofzoneiandiiopenglobeinjuries
AT raghucmudumbai lensinjuryinsettingofzoneiandiiopenglobeinjuries