Advertisement

Correlation analysis of the clinical features and prognosis of acute ocular burns—exploration of a new classification scheme

  • Fuyan Wang
  • Jun Cheng
  • Hualei Zhai
  • Yanling Dong
  • Hua Li
  • Lixin XieEmail author
Cornea
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To explore a new classification scheme for acute ocular burns.

Methods

Medical records of 345 patients (450 eyes) with acute ocular burns treated at Shandong Eye Institute between January 2013 and January 2018 with a 12-month minimum follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 8 parameters in the acute phase were evaluated and graded on a scale from 0 to 3 according to their severity.

Results

The key factors affecting the prognosis of acute ocular burns were conjunctival involvement (386 eyes, 85.8%), corneal epithelial defect (349 eyes, 77.6%), and limbal ischemia (244 eyes, 54.2%). Visual acuity in 181/450 eyes (40.2%) was worse than 6/60. The injury severity of the cornea, limbus, bulbar conjunctiva, eyelid, and fornix and intraocular signs in the acute phase was significantly correlated with the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity (correlation coefficient [R] 0.481–0.933, P < 0.0001) and corneal opacification, neovascularization, and symblepharon scores in the stable phase (R 0.513–0.855, P < 0.0001). The mean total score for the 8 parameters in the acute phase was 5.34 ± 4.04 (range 0–14); higher scores indicated worse visual acuity (R = 0.899, P < 0.0001). The total score for acute-phase parameters was significantly correlated with that for the stable-phase parameters (R = 0.872, P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The severity of acute-phase parameters is significantly correlated with the final visual outcome and prognosis. The new grading scheme can help clinicians more accurately analyze the degree of ocular burns, determine a reasonable treatment protocol, and rationally evaluate the prognosis.

Keywords

Acute ocular burns New classification scheme Clinical features Prognosis 

Notes

Funding information

This study was funded by the National Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2017BH026).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Fish R, Davidson RS (2010) Management of ocular thermal and chemical injuries, including amniotic membrane therapy. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 21:317–321PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xie YF, Tan YY, Tang S (2004) Epidemiology of 377 patients with chemical burns in Guangdong province. Burns 30:569–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hong JX, Qiu T, Wei AG, Sun XH, Xu JJ (2010) Clinical characteristics and visual outcome of severe ocular chemical injuries in Shanghai. Ophthalmology 117:2268–2272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pfister RR (1983) Chemical injuries of the eye. Ophthalmology 90:1246–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vajpayee RB, Shekhar H, Sharma N, Jhanji V (2013) Demographic and clinical profile of ocular chemical injuries in the pediatric age group. Ophthalmology 121:377–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gicquel JJ (2011) Management of ocular surface chemical burns. Br J Ophthalmol 95:159–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baradaran-Rafii A, Eslani M, Haq Z, Shirzadeh E, Huvard MJ, Djalili AR (2017) Current and upcoming therapies for ocular surface chemical injuries. Ocular Surface 15:48–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sharifipour F, Baradaranrafii A, Idani E, Zamani M, Bonyadi MHJ (2011) Oxygen therapy for acute ocular chemical or thermal burns: a pilot study. Am J Ophthalmol 151:823–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gupta N, Kalaivani M, Tandon R (2011) Comparison of prognostic value of Roper Hall and Dua classification systems in acute ocular burns. Br J Ophthalmol 95:194–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ballen PH (1964) Treatment of chemical burns of the eye. Eye Ear Nose Throat Mon 43:57–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roper-Hall MJ (1965) Thermal and chemical burns. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 85:631–653PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dua H, King A, Joseph A (2001) A new classification of ocular surface burns. Br J Ophthalmol 85:1379–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sotozono C, Ang LPK, Koizumi N, Higashihara H, Ueta M, Inatomi T, Yokoi N, Kaido M, Dogru M, Shimazaki (2007) New grading system for the evaluation of chronic ocular manifestations in patients with Stevens–Johnson syndrome. Ophthalmology 114:1294–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Basu S, Mohan S, Bhalekar S, Singh V, Sangwan V (2018) Simple limbal epithelial transplantation (SLET) in failed cultivated limbal epithelial transplantation (CLET) for unilateral chronic ocular burns. Br J Ophthalmo bjophthalmol-2017-311506Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Basu S, Sureka SP, Shanbhag SS, Kethiri AR, Singh V, Sangwan VS (2016) Simple limbal epithelial transplantation: long-term clinical outcomes in 125 cases of unilateral chronic ocular surface burns. Ophthalmology 123:1000–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cheng J, Qi X, Zhao J, Zhai HL, Xie LX (2012) Comparison of penetrating keratoplasty and deep lamellar keratoplasty for macular corneal dystrophy and risk factors of recurrence. Ophthalmology 120:34–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li FM, Xie LX (2014) Chinese ophthalmology. Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haring RS, Sheffield ID, Channa R, Canner JK, Schneider EB (2016) Epidemiologic trends of chemical ocular burns in the United States. Jama Ophthalmol 134:1119–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meller D, Pires RT, Mack RJ, Figueiredo F, Heiligenhaus A, Park WC, Prabhasawat P, John T, McLeod SD, Steuhl KP (2000) Amniotic membrane transplantation for acute chemical or thermal burns. Ophthalmology 107:980–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dua HS, Azuara-Blanco A (2000) Discussion on amniotic membrane transplantation for acute chemical or thermal burns. Ophthalmology 107:990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Le QH, Chen Y, Wang X, Li YM, Hong JX, Xu JJ (2011) Vision-related quality of life in patients with ocular chemical burns. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:8951–8956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Westekemper H, Figueiredo FC, Siah WF, Wagner N, Steuhl KP, Meller D (2016) Clinical outcomes of amniotic membrane transplantation in the management of acute ocular chemical injury. Br J Ophthalmol 101:103–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lin MP, Ekşioğlu Ü, Mudumbai RC, Slabaugh MA, Chen PP (2012) Glaucoma in patients with ocular chemical burns. Am J Ophthalmol 154:481–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cabalag MS, Wasiak J, Syed Q, Paul E, Hall AJ, Cleland H (2014) Early and late complications of ocular burn injuries. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 68:356–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dohlman CH, Cade F, Regatieri CV, Zhou C, Lei F, Crnej A, Harissi-Dagher M, Robert MC, Papaliodis GN, Chen D, Aquavella JV (2018) Chemical burns of the eye: the role of retinal injury and new therapeutic possibilities. Cornea 37:248–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyClinical Medical College of Shandong UniversityJinanChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory Cultivation Base, Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Shandong Eye InstituteShandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical SciencesQingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations