Purpose: To perform a systematic review of the international literature evaluating the risk factors, preventative steps, and treatments for perioperative corneal injuries for nonocular surgery. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases were searched on April 13, 2018. Two hundred four articles were identified with 16 meeting the inclusion criteria. All studies were evaluated for quality and level of evidence. Two types of studies were included. The first were primary epidemiological studies that looked at the rates of perioperative corneal injuries after nonocular surgery and the second were trials that either studied preventative steps or treatments. Results: A statistical analysis was completed to reveal trends in perioperative corneal abrasions. Rates ranged from 0.01% to 59% with a cumulative rate of 0.64% (95% confidence interval 0.36%–1.35%). Primary risk factors were identified as longer procedures, general anesthesia, and advanced age. The most commonly associated ocular injuries were found to include chemical injury, conjunctivitis, blurred vision, and conjunctival congestion. Treatment strategies for corneal abrasion in the literature recommended erythromycin ointment and ample ocular lubrication for the fastest recovery. Education interventions alone, as studied in 2 of the 16 articles, demonstrated a significant decrease in the rate of corneal abrasions. Conclusions: Standardized ocular protection, reporting, and education initiatives were found to maximally decrease rates of perioperative corneal abrasions after nonocular surgery. However, no gold standard currently exists for intraoperative ocular protection. More research needs to be conducted on specific prevention strategies and content of educational initiatives in hopes of standard development across facilities nationwide.

Introduction Penetrating and perforating ocular trauma is often devastating and may lead to complete visual loss in the traumatized eye and subsequent compromise of the fellow eye. Enucleation is commonly utilized for management of a non-salvageable eye following penetrating and perforating ocular injuries. Recently, the use of evisceration for non-salvageable traumatized eyes has increased. As a technically easier alternative, evisceration offers several advantages to the ocular trauma surgeon to include faster surgical times, better cosmesis and motility, and improved patient outcomes. Debate still persists concerning whether or not evisceration is a viable option in the surgical management of a non-salvageable eye following ocular trauma given the theoretical increased risk of sympathetic ophthalmia and technical difficulty in construction of the scleral shell with extensive and complex corneoscleral lacerations. A retrospective analysis at a level 1 trauma center was performed to evaluate the practicality of evisceration in ocular trauma. Materials and Methods Eyes that underwent evisceration or enucleation following ocular trauma at San Antonio Military Medical Center, a level 1 trauma center, between 01 January 2014 and 30 December 2016 were examined. Factors evaluated include mechanism of injury, defect complexity, ocular trauma score, and time from injury to surgical intervention. Surgical outcomes were assessed. Results In total, 29 eyes were examined, 15 having undergone evisceration and 14 enucleation. The average size of the scleral defect before evisceration was 20 mm in length, and 23 mm before enucleation. The mechanism of injury and characterization of the defects among the two groups were relatively similar and described. Overall comparison of the two study groups in terms of surgical outcomes and complications was also relatively similar, as demonstrated. No cases of postoperative persistent pain, sympathetic ophthalmia, infection, or hematoma were identified for either group. Conclusions The postoperative outcomes demonstrated for the evisceration group are comparable to enucleation, which is consistent with the recent literature. Defect size and complexity did not affect surgical construction of the scleral shell during evisceration. If consistently proven to be a safe and viable alternative to enucleation, evisceration can offer shorter surgical times and better cosmesis for patients. More research into the long-term complication rates and more cases of evisceration for use following ocular trauma should be assessed. Still, this analysis demonstrates that evisceration is a viable surgical alternative and perhaps superior to enucleation for the management of a non-salvageable eye following extensive ocular trauma in many cases.

No abstract