Traumatic Retinal Detachment: A Comparative Study in Closed and Open Globe Injuries.

Jae Hyup Lee, Chang Ki Yoon, Un Chul Park, Kyu Hyung Park, Eun Kyoung Lee
{"title":"Traumatic Retinal Detachment: A Comparative Study in Closed and Open Globe Injuries.","authors":"Jae Hyup Lee, Chang Ki Yoon, Un Chul Park, Kyu Hyung Park, Eun Kyoung Lee","doi":"10.3341/kjo.2025.0036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with traumatic retinal detachment (TrRD) based on the mechanism of ocular injury and identify prognostic factors associated with clinical outcomes. We hypothesized that open globe injuries would demonstrate worse clinical presentations and poorer functional outcomes compared to closed globe injuries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 98 eyes of 98 patients diagnosed with TrRD who underwent surgery, followed by a minimum of 6 months of postoperative observation. The eyes were categorized into two groups based on the mechanism of ocular injury: closed and open injuries. The clinical presentations and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were evaluated, and factors associated with anatomical and functional success were identified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-seven (37.8%) and 61 eyes (62.2%) were classified into the closed and open injury groups, respectively. Patients in the open group were more likely to exhibit vitreous hemorrhage (p = 0.003), subretinal hemorrhage (p = 0.003), and retinal incarceration than those in the closed group. Although there was no difference in the anatomical outcomes between the two groups, significantly more patients achieved functional success in the closed group (45.9%) than those in the open group (25.9%; p = 0.043). Anatomical success was associated with the absence of giant retinal tears, retinal incarceration, and proliferative vitreoretinopathy (≥ grade B). Functional success was significantly associated with better baseline best-corrected visual acuity, intraoperative intraocular lens implantation, and no retinectomy during surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the clinical presentation variations among patients with TrRD with closed and open injuries, there were no differences in anatomical outcomes between the two groups. Patients in the open group had poorer functional outcomes. By identifying specific prognostic factors associated with anatomical and functional success, this study provides evidence-based guidance for management and prognostication of patients with TrRD.</p>","PeriodicalId":101356,"journal":{"name":"Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2025.0036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with traumatic retinal detachment (TrRD) based on the mechanism of ocular injury and identify prognostic factors associated with clinical outcomes. We hypothesized that open globe injuries would demonstrate worse clinical presentations and poorer functional outcomes compared to closed globe injuries.

Methods: This retrospective study included 98 eyes of 98 patients diagnosed with TrRD who underwent surgery, followed by a minimum of 6 months of postoperative observation. The eyes were categorized into two groups based on the mechanism of ocular injury: closed and open injuries. The clinical presentations and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were evaluated, and factors associated with anatomical and functional success were identified.

Results: Thirty-seven (37.8%) and 61 eyes (62.2%) were classified into the closed and open injury groups, respectively. Patients in the open group were more likely to exhibit vitreous hemorrhage (p = 0.003), subretinal hemorrhage (p = 0.003), and retinal incarceration than those in the closed group. Although there was no difference in the anatomical outcomes between the two groups, significantly more patients achieved functional success in the closed group (45.9%) than those in the open group (25.9%; p = 0.043). Anatomical success was associated with the absence of giant retinal tears, retinal incarceration, and proliferative vitreoretinopathy (≥ grade B). Functional success was significantly associated with better baseline best-corrected visual acuity, intraoperative intraocular lens implantation, and no retinectomy during surgery.

Conclusions: Despite the clinical presentation variations among patients with TrRD with closed and open injuries, there were no differences in anatomical outcomes between the two groups. Patients in the open group had poorer functional outcomes. By identifying specific prognostic factors associated with anatomical and functional success, this study provides evidence-based guidance for management and prognostication of patients with TrRD.

外伤性视网膜脱离:闭合性和开放性视网膜损伤的比较研究。
目的:探讨外伤性视网膜脱离(TrRD)患者的临床特点及预后,探讨影响临床预后的因素。我们假设与闭合性球损伤相比,开放球损伤会表现出更差的临床表现和更差的功能结局。方法:本回顾性研究包括98例诊断为TrRD的患者的98只眼,并进行了至少6个月的术后观察。根据眼损伤机制将眼分为闭合性和开放性两组。评估两组患者的临床表现和术后结果,并确定与解剖和功能成功相关的因素。结果:闭合性损伤37眼(37.8%),开放性损伤61眼(62.2%)。与封闭组相比,开放组患者更容易出现玻璃体出血(p = 0.003)、视网膜下出血(p = 0.003)和视网膜嵌顿。虽然两组解剖结果无差异,但功能成功的患者在封闭组(45.9%)明显多于开放组(25.9%);P = 0.043)。解剖成功与没有巨大视网膜撕裂、视网膜嵌顿和增殖性玻璃体视网膜病变(≥B级)相关。功能成功与更好的基线最佳矫正视力、术中人工晶状体植入术和术中无视网膜切除术显著相关。结论:尽管闭合性和开放性TrRD患者的临床表现存在差异,但两组患者的解剖结果无差异。开放组患者的功能预后较差。通过确定与解剖和功能成功相关的特定预后因素,本研究为TrRD患者的管理和预后提供循证指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信