Evidence Hub

Delayed intraocular foreign body removal without endophthalmitis during Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom

Colyer MH, Weber ED, Weichel ED, Dick JS, Bower KS, Ward TP, Haller JA

Ophthalmology, 2007

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To report the long-term follow-up results of intraocular foreign body (IOFB) removal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom from February 2003 through November 2005 and to determine the prognostic factors for visual outcome in this patient population.

DESIGN: Retrospective, noncomparative, interventional case series.

PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-nine eyes of 70 United States military soldiers deployed in support of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom sustained IOFB injuries and subsequently were treated at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up.

INTERVENTION: The principal procedure performed was 20-gauge 3-port vitrectomy with IOFB removal through limbal or pars plana incision.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Final visual acuity, rate of proliferative vitreoretinopathy, rate of endophthalmitis.

RESULTS: Average patient age was 27 years, with an average of 331 days of postoperative follow-up. Average IOFB size was 3.7 mm (range, 0.1-20 mm). Median time to IOFB removal was 21 days (mean, 38 days; range, 2-661 days). Mean preoperative visual acuity was 20/400 (1.36 logarithm of mean angle of resolution [logMAR] units) and mean final visual acuity was 20/120 (0.75 logMAR). Of the patients, 53.4% achieved visual acuity of 20/40 or better, whereas 77.5% achieved visual acuity of better than 20/200. There were no cases of endophthalmitis (0/79 eyes; 95% confidence interval,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free