Eyal Cohen1,2, Gal Antman3,4, Etti Katzburg5,3, Neta Cohen3,6, David Varssano5,3, Marlene M Glatz7, Gad Dotan3,4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, 6 Weizmann Street, Tel Aviv, 64239, Israel. coheneyal123@gmail.com. 2. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. coheneyal123@gmail.com. 3. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 4. Ophthalmology Unit, Schneider Children's Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, 6 Weizmann Street, Tel Aviv, 64239, Israel. 6. Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Dana-Dwek Children's Hospital, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. 7. Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To construct a new pediatric ocular trauma score for predicting visual outcome after open globe injuries (OGI) and to compare it to the ocular trauma score (OTS) and pediatric ocular trauma score (POTS). METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review study. For each case, the following data were collected: demographics, mechanism of the injury, initial ophthalmologic findings, presented and last follow-up visual acuity (VA), ocular treatments, and final ocular findings. We then analyzed the risk factors for the poor visual outcome (VA ≤ 20/200), and a modified pediatric ocular trauma score (MPOTS) was constructed accordingly and compared to the OTS and POTS for predicting poor outcome. Finally, a different cohort of pediatric OGIs was used for score validation. RESULTS: Forty-five cases were included, significant predicting factors for poor visual outcome were initial VA ≤ 20/200, zone 2-3 locations of injury, presence of retinal detachment, vitreous hemorrhage, hyphema, and iris prolapse at initial presentation. The calculated Spearman correlation coefficients between each system score and poor visual outcome were OTS 0.56, POTS 0.57, and MPOTS 0.64 (P < 0.001 for all). A total of 71 new cases were used as validation cohort, and calculated Spearman correlation coefficients between each system score and poor visual outcome were: OTS 0.50, POTS 0.51, and MPOTS 0.53 (P < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: We suggest a new scoring system for predicting poor final visual outcomes after OGI's in children, which is simpler and more clinically suitable for this study population. It was found to be a better predictor of visual outcome in this scenario compared with existing scoring systems.
PURPOSE: To construct a new pediatric ocular trauma score for predicting visual outcome after open globe injuries (OGI) and to compare it to the ocular trauma score (OTS) and pediatric ocular trauma score (POTS). METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review study. For each case, the following data were collected: demographics, mechanism of the injury, initial ophthalmologic findings, presented and last follow-up visual acuity (VA), ocular treatments, and final ocular findings. We then analyzed the risk factors for the poor visual outcome (VA ≤ 20/200), and a modified pediatric ocular trauma score (MPOTS) was constructed accordingly and compared to the OTS and POTS for predicting poor outcome. Finally, a different cohort of pediatric OGIs was used for score validation. RESULTS: Forty-five cases were included, significant predicting factors for poor visual outcome were initial VA ≤ 20/200, zone 2-3 locations of injury, presence of retinal detachment, vitreous hemorrhage, hyphema, and iris prolapse at initial presentation. The calculated Spearman correlation coefficients between each system score and poor visual outcome were OTS 0.56, POTS 0.57, and MPOTS 0.64 (P < 0.001 for all). A total of 71 new cases were used as validation cohort, and calculated Spearman correlation coefficients between each system score and poor visual outcome were: OTS 0.50, POTS 0.51, and MPOTS 0.53 (P < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: We suggest a new scoring system for predicting poor final visual outcomes after OGI's in children, which is simpler and more clinically suitable for this study population. It was found to be a better predictor of visual outcome in this scenario compared with existing scoring systems.
Authors: Eleftheria Matsa; Junxin Shi; Krista K Wheeler; Tara McCarthy; Mary Lou McGregor; Julie C Leonard Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: D J Pieramici; P Sternberg; T M Aaberg; W Z Bridges; A Capone; J A Cardillo; E de Juan; F Kuhn; T A Meredith; W F Mieler; T W Olsen; P Rubsamen; T Stout Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 1997-06 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Eileen E Birch; Yolanda S Castañeda; Christina S Cheng-Patel; Sarah E Morale; Krista R Kelly; Cynthia L Beauchamp; Ann Webber Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Ferenc Kuhn; Richard Maisiak; LoRetta Mann; Viktória Mester; Robert Morris; C Douglas Witherspoon Journal: Ophthalmol Clin North Am Date: 2002-06
Authors: Marlene M Schörkhuber; Werner Wackernagel; Regina Riedl; Mona R Schneider; Andreas Wedrich Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 4.638