September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Retrospective Review of Indication of Evisceration, Enucleation or Exenteration at One Academic Institution
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Derek Horkey
    Ophthalmology, University of Kansas, Lenexa, Kansas, United States
  • Isabella Herrera
    Ophthalmology, University of Kansas, Lenexa, Kansas, United States
  • Jason Sokol
    Ophthalmology, University of Kansas, Lenexa, Kansas, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Derek Horkey, None; Isabella Herrera, None; Jason Sokol, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 705. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Derek Horkey, Isabella Herrera, Jason Sokol; Retrospective Review of Indication of Evisceration, Enucleation or Exenteration at One Academic Institution. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):705.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Purpose: At times in ophthalmology instead of vision-enhancing or vision-preserving procedures, it is necessary to perform eye destructive procedures, including evisceration, enucleation, and exenteration. The purpose of this study was to analyze over a five year period the number of eye destructive procedures and investigate the most common indication for said procedures.

Methods : Methods: After obtaining IRB approval all medical records from August of 2010-February of 2015 from patients having eye destructive procedures performed by one surgeon at one academic tertiary care facility were reviewed investigating clinical indication for the procedure.

Results : Results: There were 103 eye destructive procedures performed on 101 patients at one institution over the roughly 5 year period. Of these 103, 69% of the procedures were enucleations, 27% were exenterations, and 4% were eviscerations. The two most common indications for procedure were trauma (40%) and malignancy (34%). The other noted indications were blind painful eye (15%), infection (10%), and ruptured cornea (1%).

Conclusions : Discussion: As one might imagine more complicated cases were very common indications for eye destructive procedures at a tertiary care center. The hospital is a level I trauma which would account for a high volume of trauma cases. Also given that there is a large cancer center the high incidence of malignancy is accounted for as well. There were also five exenterations performed because of invasive mucormycosis. In these five patients, four had known malignancies and one had immunodeficiency secondary to unknown reason which was being worked up at the patients time of death. These numbers suggest that often complicated orbital trauma and malignancies are transferred or referred to tertiary care centers for definitive management and treatment. Our institution has a large cancer center, which contributes to our significant number of procedures secondary to those malignancy as well as malignancy related infections.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.

 

Indications for eye destructive procedures

Indications for eye destructive procedures

 

Distribution of malignancies and eye destructive procedures

Distribution of malignancies and eye destructive procedures

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×