June 2022
Volume 63, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2022
A 10-Year Retrospective Analysis of the Specialties and Methods Involved in the Treatment of Eyelid Laceration
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Mohit Uppal
    Rush Medical College, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois, United States
  • Terrence Murphy
    Rush Medical College, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois, United States
  • Kenya Williams
    Department of Ophthalmology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Mohit Uppal None; Terrence Murphy None; Kenya Williams None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2022, Vol.63, 611 – A0312. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Mohit Uppal, Terrence Murphy, Kenya Williams; A 10-Year Retrospective Analysis of the Specialties and Methods Involved in the Treatment of Eyelid Laceration. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022;63(7):611 – A0312.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Eyelid lacerations commonly present to academic institution emergency departments as a result of trauma or injury. While eyelid lacerations are often repaired by different medical specialties--despite varying levels of training requirements dictated by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)--no literature currently exists regarding the incidence of such repairs. We performed a retrospective chart analysis to determine the frequency of eyelid lacerations and respective treatment methods performed by different specialties.

Methods : The electronic health record was queried using International Classification of Disease codes to identify cases of eyelid laceration occurring between 2011 and 2020, determine the specialty involved in treatment, and the respective method of treatment at Rush University Medical Center, a Level II trauma center. The treatment method was classified into two categories: suture or non-suture repair.

Results : Of 468 total cases of eyelid laceration identified, 303 (64.74%) were treated by emergency medicine, 98 (20.94%) by ophthalmology, 27 (5.77%) by plastic surgery, 20 (4.27%) by primary care, 11 (2.35%) by pediatrics, and 9 (1.92%) by otolaryngology. Of these cases, 310 (66.24%) were treated using sutures. Suture-treatment occurred during 181 (59.74%) of emergency medicine’s total cases, 86 (87.76%) of ophthalmology’s total cases, 26 (96.30%) of plastic surgery’s cases, 6 (30%) of primary care’s cases, 3 (27.27%) of pediatrics’ cases, and 8 (88.89%) of otolaryngology’s cases. Year of presentation significantly affected the number of cases that ophthalmology treated, with cases increasing over time (p=0.032).

Conclusions : All specialties besides primary care and pediatrics utilized sutures during treatment in most cases. Although ophthalmology-involvement has increased throughout the years, ophthalmology was only involved in a minority of total eyelid laceration cases while emergency medicine was involved in most cases. According to the ACGME, only ophthalmology residents, opposed to residents of other specialties, are required to gain experience treating eyelid lacerations during their training. Despite this uniquely specialized training, ophthalmologist-involvement in eyelid laceration cases is relatively low compared to other specialties, warranting further studies to determine if differences in outcomes exist between specialties.

This abstract was presented at the 2022 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Denver, CO, May 1-4, 2022, and virtually.

×
×

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.

×