4.6 Article

Primary diseases of corneal perforation in Shandong Province, China: A 10-year retrospective study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 145, Issue 4, Pages 662-666

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.12.020

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To analyze primary diseases of corneal per, foration in Shandong Province, China. DESIGN: Retrospective, noncomparative study. METHODS: Medical records of 1,056 patients (1,080 eyes) with corneal perforation treated from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2006 at Shandong Eye Institute were reviewed retrospectively, and primary diseases were evaluated. RESULTS: Corneal perforations mainly were caused by ocular trauma 715 eyes (66.8%) and infectious keratopathy 294 eyes (27.5%). In the traumatic eyes, corneal penetrating wound accounted for 608 eyes (85.0%), followed by explosion injury 42 eyes (5.9%), thermal burn 34 eyes (4.8%), and chemical injury 29 eyes (4.1%). In the infectious eyes, the most common pathogens were herpes simplex virus 124 eyes (42.2%), fungus 74 eyes (25.2%), and bacterium 20 eyes (6.8%). Repeated corneal perforation occurred in nine eyes, with primary diseases of herpes simplex keratitis (HSK; four eyes), Mooren ulcer (two eyes), necrotizing keratitis and scleratitis (one eye), bacterial keratitis (one eye), and alkali burn (one eye). Corneal grafts perforated in 31 eyes, resulting from recurrent HSK (eight eyes), implant autoproteolysis (seven eyes), bacterial infections (six eyes), recurrent Mooren ulcer (four eyes), immunologic rejection (three eyes), trauma (two eyes), and fungal recurrence (one eye). CONCLUSIONS: Ocular trauma and infectious keratopathy dominated among the primary diseases of corneal perforation in Shandong Province, China, during the past 10 years. HSK seems to be the most common cause of repeated corneal perforation. Recurrent primary diseases and implant autoproteolysis and infection more often result in graft perforation.

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