March 2012
Volume 53, Issue 14
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   March 2012
Unexpected Histopathological Findings in a Large Series of Ocular Evisceration
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Eduardo A. Novais
    Ocular Pathology,
    McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • Bruno F. Fernandes
    Ocular Pathology,
    McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • Luiz Frederico R. Pacheco
    Ocular Pathology,
    McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • Sebastian Di Cesare
    Ocular Pathology,
    McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • Cristina Miyamoto
    Department of Ophthalmology,
    McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • Miguel N. Burnier, Jr.
    Ophthalmology,
    McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Eduardo A. Novais, None; Bruno F. Fernandes, None; Luiz Frederico R. Pacheco, None; Sebastian Di Cesare, None; Cristina Miyamoto, None; Miguel N. Burnier, Jr., None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science March 2012, Vol.53, 1020. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Eduardo A. Novais, Bruno F. Fernandes, Luiz Frederico R. Pacheco, Sebastian Di Cesare, Cristina Miyamoto, Miguel N. Burnier, Jr.; Unexpected Histopathological Findings in a Large Series of Ocular Evisceration. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(14):1020. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : Evisceration and enucleation are two ophthalmic surgeries used to manage blind painful eyes. There are benefits of performing evisceration over enucleation, but this procedure is contraindicated in cases where intraocular masses are suspected. Inadvertent evisceration of an eye harboring an intraocular tumor may contribute to tumor spread. Histopathological examination of evisceration specimens is crucial to determine the final correct diagnosis of those cases. A histopathological study was performed in a large series to determine the frequency of clinically undiagnosed, unexpected findings in evisceration specimens.

Methods: : During the study period (1994 to 2011), more than 16,000 human ophthalmic specimens were received at the Henry C. Witelson Ocular Pathology Laboratory and Registry. Of these, 205 were evisceration specimens. Histopathological reports were reviewed and compared with the clinical diagnosis that led to the evisceration. An unexpected finding was defined as the incidence of a histopathological feature not consistent with the clinical diagnosis.

Results: : The total number of unexpected findings was 10 (4.88%) including 2 (0.97%) unexpected malignant tumors. Other surprising findings included: 5 (2.44%) cases of granulomatous uveitis within the uveal tract; 1 (0.49%) case of epithelial downgrowth; 1 (0.49%) case of ciliary body adenoma; 1 (0.49%) case of iris nevus; 1 (0.49%) case of malignant necrotic melanoma; and 1 (0.49%) case of spindle-cell melanoma. The other evisceration specimens had histopathological findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis.

Conclusions: : Histopathological examination of all evisceration specimens should be mandatory as the standard procedure to confirm the clinical diagnosis and the presence of unexpected cases. The low frequency of unexpected findings in this large series supports evisceration of blind painful eyes as a safe, low cost procedure with a favorable cosmetic outcome.

Keywords: clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: prevalence/incidence • pathology: human 
×
×

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.

×