Advertisement

Classification of Open Globe Injuries

  • Edith R. Reshef
  • Matthew F. Gardiner
Chapter

Abstract

When describing ocular trauma, it is important to utilize consistent terminology and have a uniform classification system to provide optimal clinical outcomes. The Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology (BETT) describes the accepted set of definitions used to unambiguously describe the nature (open vs. closed globe) and mechanism of an injury. A standardized classification system is then used to further categorize ocular trauma based on the mechanism of injury (type), initial visual acuity (grade), presence or absence of an afferent pupillary defect (pupil), and anatomic location of the injury (zone). This information can be applied to calculate the Ocular Trauma Score (OTS), a prognostic tool that provides reliable prognostic information that can help the clinician counsel patients on the final visual outcome after recovery.

Keywords

Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology Ocular Trauma Score Open globe Closed globe Classification system Zones of injury 

References

  1. 1.
    Kuhn F, Pieramici DJ. Ocular trauma: principles and practice. New York: Thieme; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kuhn F. Ocular traumatology. Berlin: Springer; 2008.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banta JT. Ocular trauma. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2007.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pieramici DJ, Sternberg P, Aaberg TM, et al. A system for classifying mechanical injuries of the eye (Globe). Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;123:820–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pieramici DJ, Au Eong K-G, Sternberg P, Marsh MJ. The prognostic significance of a system for classifying mechanical injuries of the eye (globe) in open-globe injuries. J Trauma. 2003;54:750–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Williams DF, Mieler WF, Abrams GW, Lewis H. Results and prognostic factors in penetrating ocular injuries with retained intraocular foreign bodies. Ophthalmology. 1988;95:911–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Joseph E, Zak R, Smith S, Best WR, Gamelli RL, Dries DJ. Predictors of blinding or serious eye injury in blunt trauma. J Trauma. 1992;33:19–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bastiaensen LA. The visual prognosis of a perforation of the eyeball: a retrospective study. Doc Ophthalmol Adv Ophthalmol. 1981;50:213–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sternberg P, de Juan E, Michels RG, Auer C. Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors in penetrating ocular injuries. Am J Ophthalmol. 1984;98:467–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abu El-Asrar AM, Al-Amro SA, Khan NM, Kangave D. Visual outcome and prognostic factors after vitrectomy for posterior segment foreign bodies. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2000;10:304–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Souza S, Howcroft MJ. Management of posterior segment intraocular foreign bodies: 14 years’ experience. Can J Ophthalmol. 1999;34:23–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Esmaeli B, Elner SG, Schork MA, Elner VM. Visual outcome and ocular survival after penetrating trauma. A clinicopathologic study. Ophthalmology. 1995;102:393–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hutton WL, Fuller DG. Factors influencing final visual results in severely injured eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 1984;97:715–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuhn F, Maisiak R, Mann L, Morris R, Witherspoon CD. The OTS: predicting the final vision in the injured eye. In: Kuhn F, Piermici DJ, editors. Ocular trauma: principles and practice. New York: Thieme; 2002. p. 9–13.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuhn F, Morris R, Mester V, Witherspoon CD, Mann L. Predicting the severity of an eye injury: the ocular trauma score (OTS). In:Ocular traumatology. Berlin: Springer; 2008. p. 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edith R. Reshef
    • 1
  • Matthew F. Gardiner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyHarvard Medical School, Massachusetts Eye and EarBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations