4.6 Article

Postoperative severe visual impairment: surgical outcome of 165 patients with orbital tumours in the muscle cone

Journal

EYE
Volume 35, Issue 9, Pages 2535-2542

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-020-01270-7

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Tianjin Clinical Key Discipline Project [TJLCZDXKQ020]
  2. Tianjin Medical University Eye Institute Clinical Research Fund [16YKYJS001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Severe vision impairment after surgery for primary orbital tumors in the muscle cone is associated with tumor location in the orbital apex, severe optic nerve displacement, and intraoperative tight adhesion. The incidence of PSVI in intraconal tumors is 7.3%, with NLP occurring in 1.8% of cases.
Objective This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors of postoperative severe vision impairment (PSVI) for a primary orbital tumour in the muscle cone. Methods A retrospective analysis of the patients who underwent orbitotomy for primary intraconal tumours at the Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital from January 2010 to December 2015. Results A total of 165 cases of orbitotomy for primary orbital tumours in the muscle cone were included in the study. Postoperatively, 12 cases with vision acuity <= 20/400 or >= 4 rows of vision decline and without any corrected effect were analysed as PSVI, including no light perception (NLP) for 3 cases. The multivariate logistic regression indicated that the tumour in orbital apex (P = 0.048, OR = 4.912, 95% CI: 1.011-23.866), severe optic nerve displacement (P = 0.030, OR = 6.007, 95% CI: 1.184-30.473) and intraoperative tight adhesion (P = 0.003, OR = 12.031, 95% CI: 2.282-63.441) were the independent risk factors for PSVI. Conclusions The incidence of PSVI for the intraconal tumour was 7.3%, and the incidence of NLP was 1.8%. The tumour in orbital apex, severe optic nerve displacement and intraoperative tight adhesion were independent risk factors for PSVI.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available