Advertisement

Spektrum der Augenheilkunde

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 305–310 | Cite as

Gender differences in open globe injuries in children

  • Marlene M. SchörkhuberEmail author
  • Mona R. Schneider
  • Regina Riedl
  • Werner Wackernagel
  • Martina Brandner
  • Andreas Wedrich
original article

Summary

Background

Open globe injuries are characterized by at least one full-thickness wound of the eyewall (cornea and sclera). Their causes and prognosis vary strongly with the country in which they occur. This study gives an overview about the injury circumstances and visual outcome in children in the catchment area of the University Department of Ophthalmology of Graz (Styria, parts of Burgenland, and Carinthia).

Material and methods

The patient records of all children < 18 years of age who were operated on between 1992 and 2011 at the University Department of Ophthalmology of Graz because of open globe injuries were analyzed. Epidemiologic data as well as the functional and anatomical outcome were evaluated with a special focus on gender differences. Only children with a follow-up of at least 1 year were included in the analysis of the visual outcome.

Results

We observed a preponderance of males (p < 0.001) in our collective of 104 children; 81 (77.9 %) patients were boys, and 23 (22.1 %) were girls. There was a gender-specific difference of the age at injury: the girls were injured at a significantly younger age than the boys (median: 6 versus 11 years, p = 0.001). The patients sustained 76 (73.1 %) penetrating injuries, 19 (18.3 %) injuries with an intraocular foreign body, 6 (5.8 %) ruptures, and 3 (2.9 %) perforating injuries. The most frequent injury objects were tools (n = 21, 20.2 %), sticks and arrows (n = 18, 17.3 %), and glass fragments (n = 12, 11.5 %). Of 88 patients with recorded final visual acuity (FVA), 52 (59.1 %) recovered a vision of at least 20/40; 14 (15.9 %) went unilaterally blind. The FVA significantly improved (p < 0.001) compared with the initial visual acuity.

Conclusion

The majority of victims were teenage boys, and the most frequent injury objects were tools. Injuries in girls occurred at a younger age than those in boys.

Keywords

Eye injuries Open globe Penetrating Intraocular foreign body Children 

Geschlechtsunterschiede bei bulbuseröffnenden Augenverletzungen im Kindesalter

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Bulbuseröffnende Augenverletzungen sind charakterisiert durch mindestens eine Wunde, die die Hornhaut oder Sklera in ihrer gesamten Dicke durchbricht. Für ihre Ursachen und ihre Prognose gibt es deutliche länderspezifische Unterschiede. Diese Studie gibt einen Überblick über die Verletzungsumstände und den Endvisus von Kindern im Einzugsgebiet der Universitätsaugenklinik Graz (Steiermark, Teile von Burgenland und Kärnten).

Material und Methode

Wir analysierten die Daten von allen Kindern unter 18, die zwischen 1992 und 2011 aufgrund einer bulbuseröffnenden Verletzung an der Universitätsaugenklinik Graz operiert wurden. Epidemiologische Daten, sowie das funktionelle und anatomische Endergebnis wurden, mit besonderer Begutachtung der Geschlechtsunterschiede, evaluiert. In die Analyse des Endvisus inkludierten wir nur Kinder mit einer Nachbeobachtungszeit von mindestens einem Jahr.

Resultate

In unserem Kollektiv von 104 Kindern befanden sich signifikant mehr Buben (81 = 77,9 %) als Mädchen (23 = 22,1 %, p < 0,001). Ein geschlechterspezifischer Unterschied trat auch im Verletzungsalter auf: Die verletzten Mädchen waren deutlich jünger als die verletzten Buben (Median sechs und elf Jahre, p = 0,001). Wir operierten 76 (73,1 %) penetrierende Verletzungen, 19 (18,3 %) mit intraokularem Fremdkörper, sechs (5,8 %) Rupturen und drei (2,9 %) perforierende Verletzungen. Die häufigsten Verletzungsobjekte waren Werkzeuge (n = 21, 20,2 %), Stecken und Pfeile (n = 18, 17,3 %) und Glassplitter (n = 12, 11,5 %). Von den 88 Patienten mit dokumentiertem Endvisus betrug die Sehschärfe bei 52 (59,1 %) zumindest 0,5, 14 (15,9 %) erblindeten. Der Endvisus war signifikant besser als der Aufnahmevisus (p < 0,001).

Schlussfolgerung

Die Mehrzahl der Verletzten waren männliche Teenager, die häufigsten Verletzungsobjekte Werkzeuge. Die Mädchen waren zum Zeitpunkt der Verletzung signifikant jünger als die Buben.

Schlüsselwörter

Augenverletzung Bulbuseröffnend Penetrierend Intraokularer Fremdkörper Kinder 

References

  1. 1.
    Kuhn F, Morris R, Witherspoon CD, Mann L. Epidemiology of blinding trauma in the United States Eye Injury Registry. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2006;13:209–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pollard KA, Xiang H, Smith GA. Pediatric eye injuries treated in US emergency departments, 1990-2009. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2012;51:374–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prevent Blindness in America. The scope of the eye injury problem. preventblindness.org. 2008. http://198.170.234.66/resources/Non-Customizable/NC_FS93_08-083_Scope_Eye_Injury.pdf. Accessed 24 July 2012.
  4. 4.
    Kuhn F, Maisiak R, Mann L, Mester V, Morris R, Witherspoon CD. The Ocular Trauma Score (OTS). Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2002;15:163–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    World health organization, International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness. Childhood blindness.vision2020.org. 2010. http://vision2020.org/main.cfm?type=WIBCHILDHOOD. Accessed 26 July 2012.
  6. 6.
    Zuckerman B, Stevens GD, Inkelas M, Halfon N. Prevalence and correlates of high-quality basic pediatric preventive care. Pediatrics. 2004;114:1522–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Galuska DA, Fulton JE, Powell KE, Burgeson CR, Pratt M, Elster A, et al. Pediatrician counseling about preventive health topics: results from the Physicians’ Practices Survey, 1998-1999. Pediatrics. 2002;109:E83–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Houtrow AJ, Kim SE, Chen AY, Newacheck PW. Preventive health care for children with and without special health care needs. Pediatrics. 2007;119:e821–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Négrel AD, Thylefors B. The global impact of eye injuries. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1998;5:143–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Apte RS, Scheufele TA, Blomquist PH. Etiology of blindness in an urban community hospital setting. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:693–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tabbara KF, El-Sheikh HF, Shawaf SS. Pattern of childhood blindness at a referral center in Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med. 2005;25:18–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rizyal A, Karmacharya PC, Koirala S. Profile of blindness in Nepal: a hospital based study. Nepal Med Coll J. 2005 June 1;7:54–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oluleye TS, Ajaiyeoba AI, Akinwale MO, Olusanya BA. Causes of blindness in Southwestern Nigeria: a general hospital clinic study. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2006;16:604–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nallasamy S, Anninger WV, Quinn GE, Kroener B, Zetola NM, Nkomazana O. Survey of childhood blindness and visual impairment in Botswana. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95:1365–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eballe AO, Epée E, Koki G, Bella L, Mvogo CE. Unilateral childhood blindness: a hospital-based study in Yaoundé, Cameroon. Clin Ophthalmol. 2009;3:461–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beby F, Kodjikian L, Roche O, Donate D, Kouassi N, Burillon C, et al. Traumatismes oculaires perforants de l’enfant. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2006;29:20–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jandeck C, Kellner U, Bornfeld N, Foerster MH. Open globe injuries in children. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2000;238:420–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gupta A, Rahman I, Leatherbarrow B. Open globe injuries in children: factors predictive of a poor final visual acuity. Eye. 2009;23:621–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rostomian K, Thach AB, Isfahani A, Pakkar A, Pakkar R, Borchert M. Open globe injuries in children. J AAPOS. 1998;2:234–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Skiker H, Laghmari M, Boutimzine N, Ibrahimy W, Benharbit M, Ouazani B, et al. Les plaies du globe oculaire de l’enfant: étude rétrospective de 62 cas. Bull Soc Belge Ophthalmol. 2007;306:57–61.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hill JR, Crawford BD, Lee H, Tawansky KA. Evaluation of open globe injuries of children in the last 12 years. Retina. 2006;26:65–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thompson CG, Kumar N, Billson FA, Martin F. The aetiology of perforating ocular injuries in children. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:920–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Farr AK, Hairston RJ, Humayun MU, Marsh MJ, Pieramici DJ, MacCumber MW, et al. Open globe injuries in children: a retrospective analysis. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2001;38:72–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prado Júnior J, Alves MR, Kara José N, Usuba FS, Onclix TM, Marantes CR. Perforating eye injuries in children. Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo. 1996;51:44–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Behbehani AM, Lotfy N, Ezzdean H, Albader S, Kamel M, Abul N. Open eye injuries in the pediatric population in Kuwait. Med Princ Pract. 2002;11:183–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Narang S, Gupta V, Simalandhi P, Gupta A, Raj S, Dogra MR. Paediatric open globe injuries. Visual outcome and risk factors for endophthalmitis. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2004;52:29–34 (ex, substitute).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jaison SG, Silas SE, Daniel R, Chopra SK. A review of childhood admission with perforating ocular injuries in a hospital in north-west India. Indian J Ophthalmol. 1994;42:199–201.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lesniak SP, Bauza A, Son JH, Zarbin MA, Langer P, Guo S, Wagner RS, Bhagat N. Twelve-year review of pediatric traumatic open globe injuries in an urban U.S. population. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2011;19:1–7.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Soylu M, Demircan N, Yalaz M, Işigüzel I. Etiology of pediatric perforating eye injuries in southern Turkey. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1998;5:7–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tok O, Tok L, Ozkaya D, Eraslan E, Ornek F, Bardak Y. Epidemiological characteristics and visual outcome after open globe injuries in children. J AAPOS. 2011;15:556–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kuhn F, Morris R, Witherspoon CD, Mester V. The Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology system (BETT). J Fr Ophtalmol. 2004;27:206–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:614–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rivara FP, Bergman AB, LoGerfo JP, Weiss NS. Epidemiology of childhood injuries. II. Sex differences in injury rates. Am J Dis Child. 1982;136:502–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schrader WF. Open globe injuries: epidemiological study of two eye clinics in Germany, 1981-1999. Croat Med J. 2004;45:268–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kuhn F. Ocular traumatology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2008. pp. 13–6, 51–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mansouri M, Faghihi H, Hajizadeh F, et al. Epidemiology of open-globe injuries in Iran: analysis of 2,340 cases in 5 years (report no. 1). Retina. 2009;29:1141–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Agran PF, Anderson C, Winn D, et al. Rates of pediatric injuries by 3-month intervals for children 0 to 3 years of age. Pediatrics. 2003;111:e683–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Myers JEB. Evidence in child abuse and neglect cases. New York: Aspen Publishers; 1997. pp. 326–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marlene M. Schörkhuber
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mona R. Schneider
    • 1
  • Regina Riedl
    • 2
  • Werner Wackernagel
    • 1
  • Martina Brandner
    • 1
  • Andreas Wedrich
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyMedical University of GrazGrazAustria
  2. 2.Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and DocumentationMedical University of GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations