New classification of ocular foreign bodies.

Foreign bodies (FBs) in the eye are usually classified as intraocular (IOFB) or extraocular (EOFB). In IOFB the FB is within the eye ball and in EOFB it is outside. This classification seems oversimplified. Hence a new classification is proposed on the basis of FB locations, in which adnexal FBs (in orbit, lids, con- junctiva and lacrimal apparatus) are also included. These are further classified according to their exact location. FBs can also be classified in many other ways. Besides IOFB and EOFB, another condition IMFB (intramural foreign body) is also described. The FBs are situated within cornea or sclera and are neither IOFB nor EOFB. Ocular trauma also includes trauma to ocular adnexa and hence the terms IOFB and EOFB have been replaced by IGFB (intraglobal foreign body) and EGFB (extraglobal foreign body).

Globe and Adnexal Trauma Terminology Survey.

Importance: Ocular trauma terminology should be periodically updated to enable comprehensive capturing and monitoring of ocular trauma in clinical and research settings. Objective: To update terminology for globe and adnexal trauma. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 2-round modified Delphi survey was conducted from January 1 to July 31, 2021, using an expert panel, including 69 ophthalmologists identified through their membership in ophthalmology (globe and adnexal trauma) societies. Consensus was defined as at least 67% expert agreement. A steering committee developed questions after identifying gaps in the current terminology via a targeted literature review. Round 1 sought consensus on existing and newly proposed terminology, and round 2 focused on unresolved questions from round 1. Experts included ophthalmologists who had managed, on average, 52 globe or adnexal trauma cases throughout their careers and/or published a total of 5 or more globe or adnexal trauma-related peer-reviewed articles. Main Outcomes and Measures: Expert consensus on ocular and adnexal terms. Results: A total of 69 experts participated in and completed round 1 of the survey. All 69 participants who completed round 1 were asked to complete round 2, and 58 responses were received. Consensus was reached for 18 of 25 questions (72%) in round 1 and 4 of 7 questions (57%) in round 2. Existing Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology system terminology achieved consensus of 84% (58 of 69 experts) in round 1 and 97% (56 of 58 experts) in round 2. Experts agreed on the need for further refinement of the definition of zones of injury (55 of 69 [80%]), as the zone affected can have a substantial effect on visual and functional outcomes. There was consensus that the mechanism of injury (52 of 69 [75%]) and status of the lacrimal canaliculi (54 of 69 [78%]), nasolacrimal ducts (48 of 69 [69%]), lens (46 of 58 [80%]), retina (42 of 58 [73%]), and central and paracentral cornea (47 of 58 [81%]) be included in the revised terminology. Conclusions and Relevance: There was consensus (defined as at least 67% expert agreement) on continued use of the existing Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology system definitions and that additional terms are required to update the current ocular trauma terminology.

Systematic analysis of ocular trauma by a new proposed ocular trauma classification.

PURPOSE: The current classification of ocular trauma does not incorporate adnexal trauma, injuries that are attributable to a nonmechanical cause and destructive globe injuries. This study proposes a new classification system of ocular trauma which is broader-based to allow for the classification of a wider range of ocular injuries not covered by the current classification. METHODS: A clinic-based cross-sectional study to validate the proposed classification. We analyzed 535 cases of ocular injury from January 1, 2012 to February 28, 2012 over a 4-year period in an eye hospital in central India using our proposed classification system and compared it with conventional classification. RESULTS: The new classification system allowed for classification of all 535 cases of ocular injury. The conventional classification was only able to classify 364 of the 535 trauma cases. Injuries involving the adnexa, nonmechanical injuries and destructive globe injuries could not be classified by the conventional classification, thus missing about 33% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our classification system shows an improvement over existing ocular trauma classification as it allows for the classification of all type of ocular injuries and will allow for better and specific prognostication. This system has the potential to aid communication between physicians and result in better patient care. It can also provide a more authentic, wide spectrum of ocular injuries in correlation with etiology. By including adnexal injuries and nonmechanical injuries, we have been able to classify all 535 cases of trauma. Otherwise, about 30% of cases would have been excluded from the study.