Outcomes of ocular evisceration and enucleation in the British Armed Forces from Iraq and Afghanistan

Multi-disciplinary surgical management of ocular and maxillofacial ballistic injury: A case report

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Injury to the maxillofacial region is of great importance due to the highly sensitive area, and the vital structures it carries. Special surgical wounding techniques must be used due to the significant tissue destruction. We report a unique case of a ballistic blast injury in a pregnant woman in a civilian setting.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 35-year-old pregnant female, in the third trimester, presented at our hospital after ballistic ocular and maxillofacial injuries. Due to the complex nature of her injury, a multi-disciplinary team consisting of otolaryngologists, neurosurgeons, ophthalmologists, and radiologists was formed to manage the patient. She was managed by performing an evisceration followed by an enucleation and a spherical implant, then underwent mandibulo-maxillary fixation due to a foreign body medial to the left ramus. This initial management plan proved to be effective until two (2) years later, she presented with new onset meningocele and active CSF rhinorrhea and meningitis, due to a left anterior skull base defect. The patient was then managed by reconstructive orbital and ethmoidal roof surgery. In addition, her pregnancy had favorable outcomes after an uneventful delivery.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

Civilian setting injuries are specifically sensitive due to the lack of proper protection, such as in this case. This patient, a pregnant victim of a ballistic blast injury, was managed successfully by a multidisciplinary team through multiple reconstructive surgeries yet presented with a late life-threatening complication.

CONCLUSION

Long-term follow-up for such complex cases is recommended due to the possibility of late complications, despite adequate surgical management.

A comparison of primary and secondary eye removal after open globe injury: A multi-centre study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to compare the characteristics and surgical outcomes of patients who underwent primary eye removal surgery after open globe injury with those who underwent secondary eye removal surgery after open globe repair.

SUBJECTS/METHODS

This was a retrospective review of subjects who underwent evisceration or enucleation within 3 months of an open globe injury, at three Level I trauma centres in three U.S. cities between July 2014 and July 2020.

RESULTS

19 patients underwent primary eye removal and 20 underwent secondary eye removal. The most common mechanism of trauma in patients who underwent primary eye removal was gunshot. Compared to the secondary eye removal group, patients who underwent primary eye removal were significantly more likely to be male; have longer hospital stays; be discharged to another care facility rather than home; have facial fractures; suffer intracranial injury; and be unable to consent themselves for surgery. Both groups had a low surgical complication rate with one case of socket contracture in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

The standard of care for an open globe injury is prompt repair, but there are occasions when the globe is so damaged that it is deemed unrepairable. We found that globes that required primary eye removal were more often due to gunshot wounds, and that there was greater morbidity associated with these injuries. The authors' preferred surgical approach was evisceration with placement of a silicone sphere; patient outcomes demonstrate that this method was found to be safe, with a low complication and infection rate.

Risk Factors for Enucleation Following Open Globe Injury: A 17-Year Experience

Purpose

At the time of open globe injury (OGI), it may be difficult for clinicians to predict which eyes are at highest risk for requiring enucleation. We performed a 17-year retrospective cohort study to report outcomes and risk factors for enucleation following open globe injuryto better aid clinicians counseling patients at OGI diagnosis.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of all patients who presented to the University of Michigan with open globe injury (OGI) and were surgically managed between January 2000 and July 2017 was conducted. At least 30 days of follow-up was required. All eyes that ultimately underwent enucleation following OGI were identified and their clinical course analyzed. The main outcome measured was the rate of enucleation after OGI.

Results

There were 587 eyes meeting inclusion criteria. The mean patient age was 40.75 ± 25.1 (range 1-91). 441/585 (75.4%) patients were male. Average follow-up time was 1029.9 ± 1285.9 days. 116/587 eyes (19.8%) required enucleation after OGI, with 81.9% undergoing enucleation less than 30 days from injury. In enucleated eyes, the mean presenting logMAR vision was 2.91 ± 0.47 (Snellen equivalent between hand motion and light perception). The most common mechanism of injury requiring enucleation was globe rupture, 89/116 (76.7%), with 14/116 (12.1%) penetrating injuries and 13/116 (11.2%) perforating injuries. The mean age of patients that underwent enucleation was 45.6 ± 22.5 (range 3-91).

Conclusion

Open globe injuries are often visually devastating and a significant number of cases ultimately require enucleation. Despite emergent closure within 24 hours, 19.8% of eyes managed for OGI at our institution required eventual enucleation. 81.2% of these eyes required enucleation within 30 days of injury. Wound length greater than 10 mm, uveal prolapse, higher zone of injury, IOFB, and RAPD were identified as risk factors that predict future need for enucleation.

Quality of life associated with no light perception vision

OBJECTIVE

Time trade-off (TTO) utility analysis quantifies the quality of life associated with best-seeing-eye (BSE) vision. We compared the patient quality of life associated with unilateral and bilateral no light perception (NLP) with that of a control cohort without NLP.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional interviews using a validated, reliable TTO vision utility analysis instrument.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1598 consecutive ophthalmology patients from the authors' practices.

METHODS

Patient records were reviewed in a case-control fashion The utilities of participants with unilateral or bilateral NLP vision were compared with those from patients without NLP vision.

RESULTS

Among 99 NLP patients, 93 (94%) had unilateral NLP and 6 (6%) had bilateral NLP, for a total of 105 NLP eyes. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated the highest correlation between utility and BSE acuity (p = 0.001), with no correlation with age, ophthalmic disease, time of vision loss, race, or education. Mean unilateral NLP utility ranged from 0.55 in the counting fingers to light perception subcohort to 0.80 in the 20/20-20/25 subcohort. The 6-person bilateral NLP subcohort had a 0.54 utility. The 99-patient NLP cohort mean utility was 0.69, a 55% quality-of-life decrease versus a BSE vision-matched 0.80 in 1499 non-NLP patients (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

TTO utility in unilateral NLP patients correlated with BSE vision at a lower utility than in patients with matched BSE vision without fellow-eye NLP. Decreased unilateral NLP patient quality of life should be considered in cost-utility analysis and clinical management. Bilateral NLP patient utility (0.54) was slightly less than that (0.55) in blind unilateral NLP patients with fellow-eye counting fingers to light perception vision, suggesting that more study is needed.

The Ruptured Globe, Sympathetic Ophthalmia, and the 14-Day Rule

PURPOSE

Prophylactic enucleation of a ruptured globe with no light perception within 14 days of injury to prevent sympathetic ophthalmia (SO) has been an established dictum in academic teaching for more than 100 years. This treatment strategy was originally based on observation, speculation, and careful thought, but there was never any scientific proof. This review summarizes and updates the current state of our knowledge about globe rupture and SO, examines the origin and validity of the 14-day rule, and emphasizes the importance of trying to save the traumatized eye whenever possible.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review of SO and globe rupture was performed.

RESULTS

SO is a rare disorder that may potentially occur following traumatic globe rupture as well as following a variety of other intraocular surgeries. Vitreoretinal surgery may be a more common cause than trauma according to some studies. SO may still occur despite having the eye removed within 14 days of the trauma. A variety of new medications including biologic agents are now available to treat SO with improved efficacy in suppressing the associated ocular inflammation and allowing retention of some useful vision. Removing the traumatized, blind eye may have other important psychological consequences associated with it that require consideration before eye removal is carried out. Retaining the blind, phthisical, disfigured eye avoids phantom vision and phantom pain associated with enucleation as well as providing a good platform to support and move an overlying prosthetic eye. Data on the occurrence of SO following evisceration and enucleation with and without predisposing factors confirms the exceedingly low risk.

CONCLUSION

Most civilian open globe injuries can be successfully repaired with modern, advanced microsurgical techniques currently available. Because of the exceedingly low risk of SO, even with the severity of open globe trauma during military conflicts being more devastating as a result of the blast and explosive injuries, today every attempt is made to primarily close the eye rather than primarily enucleate it, providing there is enough viable tissue to repair. The 14-day rule for eye removal after severe globe ruptures is not scientifically supported and does not always protect against SO, but the safe time period for prophylactic eye removal is not definitively known. In the exceptional cases where SO does occur, several new medications are now available that may help treat SO. We advocate saving the ruptured globe whenever possible and avoiding prophylactic enucleation to prevent the rare occurrence of SO. When an eye requires removal, evisceration is an acceptable alternative to enucleation in cases that do not harbor intraocular malignancy.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Moderate to Severe Postoperative Pain Following the Placement of Primary and Secondary Orbital Implants: A Prospective Observational Study

PURPOSE

To prospectively explore the incidence and risk factors of moderate to severe pain after primary and secondary orbital implantation following evisceration or enucleation surgery.

METHODS

One hundred eighteen patients under general anesthesia for orbital implantation were enrolled in this study. In 91 patients, primary orbital implantation followed evisceration, and in 27 patients, the implantation was secondary after previous evisceration or enucleation surgery. Medical interventions for all participants were followed by standardized surgical, anesthetic, and analgesic protocols. Postoperative pain (POP) intensity was quantified by an 11-point numerical rating scale within 72 hours after the surgery, numerical rating scale ≥4 was considered moderate to severe POP. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to identify the risk factors related to the development of POP.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients (29.7%) displayed moderate to severe POP, particularly within 6 to 24 hours after surgery, which peaked at 24 hours. Of these patients, 26 patients who were unable to tolerate the pain received additional doses of analgesics during in-hospital stay. Logistic regression model revealed that preoperative anxiety (odds ratios = 4.890; p = 0.002), congenital microphthalmia (odds ratios = 14.602; p = 0.038), and surgical time longer than 60 minutes (odds ratios = 5.586; p = 0.001) were significantly associated with moderate to severe POP after orbital implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Orbital implantation after evisceration or enucleation surgery is likely to cause moderate to severe pain intensity in the early postoperative period. Preoperative anxiety, prolonged surgical time, and congenital microphthalmia were the risk factors.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Primary or Secondary Enucleation or Evisceration After Ocular Trauma

Purpose

To investigate the frequency of primary versus secondary eye removal, frequency of enucleation versus evisceration, and characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing these procedures after presenting with severe ocular trauma.

Patients and Methods

Retrospective chart review of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with severe eye trauma necessitating enucleation or evisceration between 2010 and 2018.

Results

There were 92 eyes from 90 patients included in our study. Twenty-seven percent of eyes underwent primary removal (n=25, 14 enucleation, 11 evisceration), while 73% of eyes underwent secondary removal (n=67, 50 enucleation, 17 evisceration). The mean patient age was 45.2 years (range 4.2–92.6); primary enucleation/evisceration patients were older on average than secondary eye removal patients [53.8 years (range 15.9–91.2) versus 42.2 years (range 4.2–91.6 years), p=0.04]. A median of 34 days passed between ED presentation and secondary enucleation/evisceration. Before undergoing secondary enucleation/evisceration, patients underwent a median of one ocular procedure (range 0–14) for various complications of trauma including orbital infection, choroidal or retinal tear or detachment, and wound dehiscence. Open globe injury repairs comprised 43 of the 92 total procedures (47%) performed prior to secondary enucleation/evisceration. Secondary enucleations/eviscerations required a median of seven clinic visits compared to two clinic visits required after primary surgeries (p<0.01). 10.7% of all patients (n=10) had at least one implant-related complication following enucleation/evisceration, with all but one of these patients being in the secondary enucleation/evisceration group.

Conclusion

Primary enucleation or evisceration was performed in 27% of all eye removals, and enucleation was performed in 69.6% of all eye removals. Future research is warranted to determine if primary eye removal may be appropriate and when to consider enucleation versus evisceration.