Süleyman Taş1, Hüsamettin Top2. 1. Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Trakya University Faculty of Medicine, Edirne, Turkey. drsuleymantas@live.com. 2. Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Trakya University Faculty of Medicine, Edirne, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe herein the clinical features, diagnosis and treatment of intraorbital wooden foreign body injuries. METHODS: A case series review of orbital injuries managed at Trakya University Faculty of Medicine between 2002 and 2012 was performed retrospectively. The clinical analysis of 32 intraorbital wooden foreign body injuries was reviewed. RESULTS: Among the 32 cases, injuries in 16 were caused by a tree branch, in 10 by a pencil, in 5 by a stick, and in 1 by a bush. With respect to preoperative vision, postoperative vision was improved in 69% of patients. Time lapse from injury to presentation was correlated with the size of the foreign body. The subjects were comparable in etiological factor, and distribution of injury according to orbit was as follows: superior 28%, medial 25%, lateral 22%, inferior 16%, and posterior 9%. Computerized tomography (CT) for foreign body was definitive in 72% (n=23) and suggestive in 28% (n=9). CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of orbital wooden foreign body is difficult because it may be missed clinically and from the imaging perspective. If a foreign body is suspected, optimal patient management should be done. Prior to the surgery, imaging modalities should be maximally utilized. A careful preoperative evaluation, imaging studies, which are event-specific, a high index of suspicion, and rigorous surgery and postoperative care are the keys in the management of orbital wooden foreign body injuries.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe herein the clinical features, diagnosis and treatment of intraorbital wooden foreign body injuries. METHODS: A case series review of orbital injuries managed at Trakya University Faculty of Medicine between 2002 and 2012 was performed retrospectively. The clinical analysis of 32 intraorbital wooden foreign body injuries was reviewed. RESULTS: Among the 32 cases, injuries in 16 were caused by a tree branch, in 10 by a pencil, in 5 by a stick, and in 1 by a bush. With respect to preoperative vision, postoperative vision was improved in 69% of patients. Time lapse from injury to presentation was correlated with the size of the foreign body. The subjects were comparable in etiological factor, and distribution of injury according to orbit was as follows: superior 28%, medial 25%, lateral 22%, inferior 16%, and posterior 9%. Computerized tomography (CT) for foreign body was definitive in 72% (n=23) and suggestive in 28% (n=9). CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of orbital wooden foreign body is difficult because it may be missed clinically and from the imaging perspective. If a foreign body is suspected, optimal patient management should be done. Prior to the surgery, imaging modalities should be maximally utilized. A careful preoperative evaluation, imaging studies, which are event-specific, a high index of suspicion, and rigorous surgery and postoperative care are the keys in the management of orbital wooden foreign body injuries.