Long-term ophthalmic anatomical and functional outcomes after surgical removal of intraorbital foreign bodies

Abstract

Purpose:

To analyze the anatomical and functional ophthalmic parameters after the surgical removal of various intraorbital foreign bodies.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis of medical records was performed featuring detailed history, ophthalmic examination, orbital computed tomographic scans, treatment details, and outcomes. The analyzed anatomical factors included extraocular movements, the position of the eyeball (proptosis, dystopia, and enophthalmos), and fullness of orbital sulci. The functional assessment was based on visual acuity, pupillary reactions, and diplopia. The outcomes were defined as complete, partial, and failure after a minimum follow-up of 1 year.

Results:

Of 32 patients, the organic and inorganic intraorbital foreign bodies were surgically removed from 18 (56.25%) and 14 (43.75%) orbits, respectively. At presentation, anatomically the extraocular movement restriction, proptosis/dystopia/enophthalmos, and orbital sulcus fullness were noted in 26 (81.25%), 24 (75%), and 15 (46.88%), respectively. Functionally, diminished visual acuity, diplopia, and pupil abnormalities were seen in 27 (84.38%), 14 (43.75%), and 8 (25%), respectively. After intraorbital foreign body removal at a mean follow-up of 14 months, the improvement of anatomical factors (same sequence) were observed in 8 (30.77%), 20 (83.33%), and 12 (80%), respectively. In functional factors (same sequence), the improvement was noted in none (0%), 13 (92.86%), and 5 (62.5%), respectively. Hence, the majority of patients (n = 20, 62.5%) achieved partial success, while 8 (25%) had complete success. Four (12.5%) had treatment failure despite similar management protocols.

Conclusion:

The anatomical outcomes are better than the functional outcomes after surgical removal of the intraorbital foreign bodies. The visual acuity does not improve considerably after the surgical removal of intraorbital foreign bodies. Overall, the wooden intraorbital foreign bodies have poorer anatomical and functional prognosis.

Keywords

Orbital foreign body anatomical outcomes functional outcomes wooden foreign body inorganic foreign body

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Callahan

Yoon

MK.

Intraorbital foreign bodies: retrospective chart review and review of literature. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2013; 53(4): 157–165.

Fulcher

McNab

Sullivan

TJ.

Clinical features and management of intraorbital foreign bodies. Ophthalmology 2002; 109(3): 494–500.

Zhou

Cui

, et al. Analysis of missed diagnosis of orbital foreign bodies. Exp Ther Med 2017; 13(4): 1275–1278.

Chen

Shen

, et al. Clinical characteristics and surgical treatment of intraorbital foreign bodies in a tertiary eye center. J Craniofac Surg 2015; 26(6): e486–e489.

Gorovoy

IR.

Pearls in ophthalmology for the emergency nurse. J Emerg Nurs 2015; 41(1): 19–22.

Pinto

Brunese

Daniele

, et al. Role of computed tomography in the assessment of intraorbital foreign bodies. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2012; 33(5): 392–395.

Bayramoglu

Sayin

Erdogan

, et al. Delayed diagnosis of an intraorbital wooden foreign body. Orbit 2018; 37(6): 468–471.

Di Gaeta

Giurazza

Capobianco

, et al. Intraorbital wooden foreign body detected by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroradiol J 2017; 30(1): 88–91.

Chehade

Curragh

Selva

Traumatic intraorbital wooden foreign body: lessons learnt. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2019; 47: 543–545.

10.

Zhou

Jin

, et al. Clinical diagnosis and treatment of intraorbital wooden foreign bodies. Chin J Traumatol 2016; 19(6): 322–325.

11.

Dolar Bilge

Yilmaz

Yazici

, et al. Intraorbital foreign bodies: clinical features and outcomes of surgical removal. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2016; 22(5): 432–436.

12.

Markowski

Dziubdziela

Gierek

, et al. Intraorbital foreign bodies – 5 own cases and review of literature. Otolaryngol Pol 2012; 66(4): 295–300.

13.

Lakits

Prokesch

Scholda

, et al. Orbital helical computed tomography in the diagnosis and management of eye trauma. Ophthalmology 1999; 106(12): 2330–2335.

14.

Javadrashid

Golamian

Shahrzad

, et al. Visibility of different intraorbital foreign bodies using plain radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and cone-beam computed tomography: an in vitro study. Can Assoc Radiol J 2017; 68(2): 194–201.

15.

Shelsta

Bilyk

Rubin

, et al. Wooden intraorbital foreign body injuries: clinical characteristics and outcomes of 23 patients. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 26(4): 238–244.

16.

Teh

Mohamad

Lim

, et al. Endoscopic transnasal removal of an intraconal foreign body using an image-guided surgical system. Comput Assist Surg 2016; 21(1): 25–28.

17.

Wen

Hou

Lei

, et al. Clinical characteristics and endoscopic endonasal removal of foreign bodies within sinuses, orbit, and skull base. Chin Med J 2017; 130(15): 1816–1823.

18.

Purgason

Hornblass

Complications of surgery for orbital tumors. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 1992; 8(2): 88–93.

19.

Romero-Trevejo

Rachwani-Parshotam

Morillo-Sanchez

MJ.

Chorioretinitis sclopetaria caused by an intraorbital metallic foreign body. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2018; 81(3): 247–249.

20.

Leung

Dunn

Beshay

, et al. Surfboard-related intraorbital foreign bodies: a case series and radiological considerations. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2018; 46(6): 702–705.