Abstract
Abstract: :
Purpose: To compare the differences in ocular trauma, and subsequent surgical repair, between prison inmates and non-inmate patients at an urban, tertiary-care medical center. Methods: Retrospective review of 414 consecutive prison inmates, evaluated at the Medical College of Virginia Hospitals Eye Clinic from 1997-2001, and for whom all medical records could be located. These inmates were compared to 400 consecutive non-inmate "control" patients. Results: Sixty-seven of 414 inmates (16%) and 14 of 400 non-inmate patients (3.5%) experienced ocular trauma (p<0.001). Five of 414 inmates (1.2%) and 0 of 400 non-inmates (0%) had open-globe injuries (p=0.06). Using the Ocular Trauma Classification Group and Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology (BETT) systems, there were no important differences between the two groups of patients with closed-globe injuries when type of injury, grade of injury (presenting visual acuity), presence of a relative afferent pupillary defect, or extent (zone) of injury were compared. Seventeen of 414 inmates (4.1%) and 3 of 400 non-inmates (0.8%) required eventual surgical intervention following ocular trauma (p=0.002). The most common procedures performed on both groups were cataract extraction and repair of eyelid lacerations. Conclusions: In our small, retrospective series, prison inmates were significantly more likely to experience ocular trauma, as well as ocular trauma eventually requiring surgical intervention. There was a trend towards a greater prevalence of open-globe injuries in the inmates. Both groups were similar with respect to closed-globe injuries. Despite many advances in the recognition and prevention of eye injuries, ocular trauma remains an important problem within the prison inmate population.
Keywords: trauma • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: pre