Epidemiology and aetiology of childhood ocular trauma in the Republic of Suriname

Abstract

ABSTRACT.Purpose: To describe the epidemiology and aetiology of ocular trauma in schoolaged children who previously visited the Suriname Eye Centre (SEC) of the Academic Hospital Paramaribo. Methods: In a hospital-based retrospective study, all cases of children who were school aged (8-15 years) at the time of the survey and previously underwent evaluation and/or treatment at the SEC because of ocular trauma were analysed. Demographic and ophthalmologic data were taken out of patient records; eye injuries were classified using the Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology classification system. Main outcome measures were type of injury, mechanism/ cause of injury, final visual acuity (VA), hospitalization, patient delay and patient compliance. Results: Five hundred and thirty-eight records were analysed which included 35 open globe injuries (OGI) (7%), 458 closed globe injuries (85%), five orbital fractures (1%) and 40 eyelid injuries (7%). The most frequent causes of trauma represented body parts (18%) and sticks or branches (13%) and resulted from poking (20%) or punching (13%) the eye. Final VA < 6/60 was reported in 58% of registered OGI. Where living in rural areas (p = 0.007), OGI (p < 0.0001) and poor compliance to scheduled check-ups (p < 0.0001) were statistically significantly related to an unfavourable outcome, patient delay was not. Patients having OGI were more often hospitalized than children with other injuries (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: This is the first study providing data on childhood ocular trauma in Suriname. As the majority of childhood injuries were avoidable, new policies should aim at developing effective, targeted preventive strategies to promote awareness, parental supervision, immediate action and compliance.

Epidemiology of pediatric eye injuries requiring hospitalization in rural areas of Wenzhou and Changsha, China: a 10-year retrospective study

“…In contrast with our results, a study conducted in Lithuania by Puodžiuvienė et al [14] found that CGI was the most common type of eye injury in children. Similar results were also presented in other studies [15][16][17].…”

“…A low education level, lack of safety awareness and lack of protective eyewear may lead to the occurrence of eye injury. Additionally, we found that male children were more likely to be injured than female children, consistent with data from other studies [16,22,23].…”

“…Of the 739 children with mechanical injuries, we found that 73.9% of the children with OGI had a VA < 6/60 at presentation, and 51.5% of the children had a final VA < 6/60. Minder et al [16] found that in children with OGI, an initial VA < 6/60 was reported in 68% and a final VA < 6/60 was reported in 59%. Compared with the initial VA, improvement in the VA was found in 319 (43.2%) children, and VA remained the same in 352 (47.6%) children, which differs from Bućan's study [15].…”

<p>Malpractice Litigation in Ophthalmic Trauma</p>

“…Importantly, ophthalmic trauma is the leading cause of unilateral non-congenital blindness in children, representing significant impact on quality of life and productivity. 6,12,13,18,19 Ophthalmic trauma cases with minor plaintiffs were more likely to be resolved in favor of the plaintiffs (53.3% vs 37.9%; P=0.35) and to have higher jury awards ($687 454 vs $572 451; P=0.64) than cases with adult plaintiffs, but neither were found to be of statistical significance. We have previously reported a similar trend in ophthalmology, in which cases with pediatric plaintiffs are more likely to have plaintiff verdicts and were associated with higher monetary awards.…”

Clinical analysis of posterior segment injury in left-behind children in China

“…Ocular trauma is the main cause of damage to children's vision [1,2], which not only severely affects children's visual development and physical and mental health, but also causes great loss to family and society. The incidence rate of paediatric ocular trauma in developing countries accounts for 1 in 1000 [3,4].…”