RESUMEN
Purpose: To identify factors predictive of serious ocular injury requiring urgent consultation by ophthalmology in patients presenting with blunt trauma orbital fractures. Methods: This is a retrospective study of adult patients diagnosed with orbital fractures after blunt trauma at a university medical center emergency room. Patient records were examined over a three-year period. Data including mechanism of injury, fracture location, ocular symptoms, and examination findings were recorded. Ocular injuries were divided into three levels of severity: mild, moderate, and severe. Fracture characteristics, patient demographics, and examination findings were analyzed using multinomial regression to identify risk factors for more severe injury. Results: One hundred and eighty-six patients met inclusion criteria. For 29.6% of patients, urgent ophthalmologic consultation was required. Ruptured globes occurred in 2.2% of injuries. There was a statistically significant association between severe ocular injury and three examination findings: poor vision (OR 14.5; p < 0.001), afferent pupillary defect (OR 44.8; p < 0.001), and abnormal pupillary reaction (OR 28.0; p < 0.001). Likewise, blurry vision (OR 3.6; p = 0.018), ocular pain (OR 3.7; p = 0.011), and facial pain (OR 4.4; p = 0.031) were also associated with an increased risk of severe ocular injury. Abnormal pupillary reaction was associated with moderate injury (OR 4.5; p = 0.041). Demographic factors, mechanism of injury, anti-coagulant use, fracture location, diplopia, no documented vision, subconjunctival hemorrhage, chemosis, and motility restriction were not associated with injury severity. Conclusion: Most patients who presented to the emergency room with an orbital fracture did not require urgent ophthalmologic consultation. The presence of blurry vision, ocular pain, facial pain, poor vision, and afferent pupillary defect significantly increased the odds of severe injury. Abnormal pupillary reaction was associated with both moderate and severe injury.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Anal mucosal melanoma is an uncommon malignancy of the anal canal, with few large studies available to establish clear trends in the treatment modalities presently available. The primary goal of this study was to identify the patterns of care in the treatment of anal melanoma and secondarily to determine outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective study performed utilizing the National Cancer Database (NCDB). A total of 787 patients diagnosed with anal melanoma between 2004 and 2014 were selected, of which 398 had staging information. The four treatment groups analyzed were surgical excision alone, surgical excision and radiation therapy, surgical excision and immunotherapy/chemotherapy, and radiation therapy plus minus immunotherapy/chemotherapy. Treatment was grouped by extent of disease; the Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze overall survival and multivariate Cox proportional model was used to identify factors associated with overall survival. RESULTS: The majority of patients presented with either node-positive (39.4%) or metastatic disease (37.4%). Patients with surgical excision and radiation therapy had the highest median survival at 32.3 months. This is in contrast with those receiving surgical excision alone (22.9 months), surgery and immunotherapy/chemotherapy (18.4 months), and radiation without surgery (5.1 months) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with surgical excision was the most common initial treatment with no single modality superior over another in this rare entity.