Penetrating eye injury in war.

The percentage of penetrating eye injuries in war has increased significantly in this century compared with the total number of combat injuries. With the increasing use of fragmentation weapons and possibly laser weapons on the battle-field in the future, the rate of eye injuries may exceed the 13% of the total military injuries found in Operations Desert Storm/Shield. During the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), eye injuries revealed that retained foreign bodies and posterior segment injuries have an improved prognosis in future military ophthalmic surgery as a result of modern diagnostic and treatment modalities. Compared with the increasing penetrating eye injuries on the battlefield, advances in ophthalmic surgery are insignificant. Eye armor, such as visors that flip up and down and protect the eyes from laser injury, needs to be developed. Similar eye protection is being developed in civilian sportswear. Penetrating eye injury in the civilian sector is becoming much closer to the military model and is now comparable for several reasons.

Military and civilian penetrating eye trauma: anesthetic implications.

In 20th century warfare, wounds from fragmentation weapons have become the number 1 cause of military hospital admissions during combat. Specifically, grenades, landmines, mortars, and artillery weapons have replaced guns and bullets. Consequently, penetrating eye injuries and maxillofacial injuries in the military have escalated dramatically. In the civilian sector, pipe bombs, explosive bottles used in gang warfare, and terrorist bombs, which are all fragmentation weapons, have generated new studies in the care of patients with penetrating eye injury. This change in the wounding pattern is, documented internationally in military-medical literature and in civilian-medical literature of relief agencies such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. The anesthetic management of open eye injuries has been a running controversy for 40 years in terms of the use of muscle relaxants. Nondepolarizing agents carry the risk of aspiration and increased intraocular pressure when trauma patients are intubated prematurely during rapid-sequence induction for "full stomachs." Succinylcholine would be the logical relaxant of choice for a rapid-sequence induction, but succinylcholine raises intraocular pressure. In many cases, the literature specifically contraindicates succinylcholine in the open eye injury for fear of extruding the content of the eye. A review of the vital assessment for the patient with a penetrating eye injury, as well as a comparative analysis of the literature, is presented. The conclusion favors pretreatment with a nondepolarizing agent and the use of succinylcholine during rapid-sequence induction. The eye injury itself is not the primary concern of this article. The primary concern is that open eye injuries serve as hallmarks for for more dangerous injuries. Penetrating open eye injuries merit extensive clinical assessment that can be life saving.