External versus internal approach to the removal of metallic intraocular foreign bodies

Retina. 2000;20(4):364-9. doi: 10.1097/00006982-200007000-00007.

Abstract

Objective: To review the management of metallic intraocular foreign bodies (IOFB) at a single institution and to compare the use of internal and external approaches for their removal.

Subjects and methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 70 eyes from 70 patients who underwent surgical removal of a metallic IOFB with either an internal (vitrectomy followed by forceps or internal magnet use) or external approach (large electromagnet) by seven vitreoretinal surgeons at a single institution between 1973 and 1996. Visual acuity and complications occurring with the two approaches were the main outcome measures studied.

Results: Overall, patients showed significant improvement in visual acuity following surgical intervention (P < 0.001) despite widely varying surgical techniques. When the authors compared patients treated with an external versus an internal approach they found no statistically significant difference with regard to visual outcome and a trend toward a higher rate of postoperative endophthalmitis in the external approach group.

Conclusion: Surgical removal of metallic IOFB results in significant visual improvement. The external approach to the removal of magnetic metallic IOFB remains a viable treatment option in select cases.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Child
  • Child, Preschool
  • Corneal Injuries
  • Eye Foreign Bodies / pathology
  • Eye Foreign Bodies / surgery*
  • Eye Injuries, Penetrating / pathology
  • Eye Injuries, Penetrating / surgery*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Lens, Crystalline / injuries
  • Lens, Crystalline / surgery
  • Magnetics / therapeutic use*
  • Male
  • Metals*
  • Middle Aged
  • Prognosis
  • Retina / injuries
  • Retina / pathology
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Visual Acuity
  • Vitrectomy / methods*

Substances

  • Metals