The Role of Nonophthalmologists in the Primary Evaluation of Head Injury Patients with Ocular Injuries
Purpose—Visual complaints are common in trauma cases. However, not every institution provides immediate ophthalmic consultations 24 h per day. Some patients may receive an ophthalmic consultation but without positive findings. We tried to evaluate risk factors for ocular emergencies in trauma patien...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
MDPI AG
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/94d2fbc904754f2cbb359eb587f8092d |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Purpose—Visual complaints are common in trauma cases. However, not every institution provides immediate ophthalmic consultations 24 h per day. Some patients may receive an ophthalmic consultation but without positive findings. We tried to evaluate risk factors for ocular emergencies in trauma patients. Then, the ophthalmologists could be selectively consulted. Methods—From January 2019 to December 2019, head injuries patients concurrent with suspected ocular injuries were retrospectively reviewed. All of the patients received comprehensive ophthalmic examinations by ophthalmologists. Patients with and without ocular injuries were compared. Specific ophthalmic evaluations that could be primarily performed by primary trauma surgeons were also analyzed in detail. Results—One hundred forty cases were studied. Eighty-nine (63.6%) patients had ocular lesions on computed tomography (CT) scans or needed ophthalmic medical/surgical intervention. Near 70% (69.7%, 62/89) of patients with ocular injuries were diagnosed by CT scans. There was a significantly higher proportion of penetrating injuries in patients with ocular injuries than in patients without ocular injuries (22.5% vs. 3.9%, <i>p</i> = 0.004). Among the patients with blunt injuries (<i>N</i> = 118), 69 (58.5%) patients had ocular injuries. These patients had significantly higher proportions of periorbital swelling (89.9% vs. 67.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.002) and diplopia (26.1% vs. 8.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.014) than patients without ocular injuries. Conclusions—In patients with head injuries, concomitant ocular injuries with indications for referral should always be considered. CT serves as a rapid and essential diagnostic tool for the evaluation of concomitant ocular injuries. Ophthalmologists could be selectively consulted for patients with penetrating injuries or specific ocular presentations, thus reducing the burden of ophthalmologists. |
|---|