• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

[需要紧急护理的外伤性视网膜损伤发生率。急诊室进行眼底评估是否必不可少?]

[Rate of traumatic retinal injuries requiring urgent care. Is ocular fundus evaluation essential in the emergency room?].

作者信息

Lima-Gómez Virgilio, Barrera-Fournier Lizette Verónica

机构信息

Servicio de Oftalmología, Hospital Juárez de México.

出版信息

Cir Cir. 2007 Mar-Apr;75(2):65-9.

PMID:17511899
Abstract

BACKGROUND

A high rate of traumatic retinal injuries does not require a directed ocular fundus evaluation but those that deserve urgent care need it. The rate of traumatic retinal injuries that require urgent care was identified in order to learn whether there is a need of evaluating the ocular fundus in an emergency room.

METHODS

Patients with ocular trauma and ocular fundus evaluation who were referred to an Ophthalmology Service of a general hospital were included; patients with superficial foreign bodies were excluded. The rate of injuries that require urgent care (retinal detachment, intraocular foreign body) was identified and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-three eyes of 148 patients (age 3-74 years, mean 26.4 years) were examined. Of 75 retinal injuries, 7 required urgent care (4.6%, 95% CI 1.3-7.9); the rate was 0.8% in closed globe trauma (95% CI 0-2.37) and 20.7 in open globe trauma (95% CI 5.9-35.5).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the rate of retinal injuries that would require urgent care in similar groups, in closed-globe trauma ocular fundus evaluation in the Emergency Room could be substituted by the evaluation of the fundus reflex; findings of any of these injuries in open-globe trauma does not modify the initial approach.

摘要

背景

高比例的外伤性视网膜损伤并不需要直接进行眼底评估,但那些需要紧急治疗的损伤则需要进行眼底评估。确定需要紧急治疗的外伤性视网膜损伤的比例,以了解在急诊室是否有必要评估眼底。

方法

纳入转诊至一家综合医院眼科的眼外伤且接受眼底评估的患者;排除有浅表异物的患者。确定需要紧急治疗的损伤(视网膜脱离、眼内异物)比例,并计算95%置信区间(CI)。

结果

检查了148例患者(年龄3 - 74岁,平均26.4岁)的153只眼。在75例视网膜损伤中,7例需要紧急治疗(4.6%,95%CI 1.3 - 7.9);在闭合性眼球外伤中该比例为0.8%(95%CI 0 - 2.37),在开放性眼球外伤中为20.7%(95%CI 5.9 - 35.5)。

结论

根据类似群体中需要紧急治疗的视网膜损伤比例,在闭合性眼球外伤中,急诊室的眼底评估可用眼底反射评估替代;开放性眼球外伤中出现这些损伤中的任何一种,都不改变初始治疗方法。

相似文献

1
[Rate of traumatic retinal injuries requiring urgent care. Is ocular fundus evaluation essential in the emergency room?].[需要紧急护理的外伤性视网膜损伤发生率。急诊室进行眼底评估是否必不可少?]
Cir Cir. 2007 Mar-Apr;75(2):65-9.
2
Traumatic pediatric retinal detachment: a comparison between open and closed globe injuries.外伤性小儿视网膜脱离:开放性与闭合性眼球损伤的比较
Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 Jun;137(6):1042-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2004.01.011.
3
Management of posterior segment intraocular foreign bodies: 14 years' experience.眼后段眼内异物的处理:14年经验
Can J Ophthalmol. 1999 Feb;34(1):23-9.
4
Ocular trauma characteristics associated with urgent retinal surgery.与紧急视网膜手术相关的眼外伤特征。
Cir Cir. 2010 Mar-Apr;78(2):109-12.
5
Prognosis of penetrating eye injuries with posterior segment intraocular foreign body.伴有眼后段眼内异物的穿透性眼外伤的预后
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008 Jan;246(1):161-5. doi: 10.1007/s00417-007-0650-1. Epub 2007 Aug 4.
6
[Glass orbital foreign body 15 years after windshield injury].[挡风玻璃损伤15年后的眼眶玻璃异物]
Ophthalmologe. 2002 Jun;99(6):488-9. doi: 10.1007/s003470100537.
7
Visual outcome following penetrating globe injuries with retained intraocular foreign bodies.眼球穿通伤伴眼内异物残留后的视力预后
Can J Ophthalmol. 1999 Dec;34(7):389-93.
8
[Vitrectomy in the treatment of ocular trauma].[玻璃体切除术治疗眼外伤]
Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 1993 Nov;29(6):329-31.
9
Ocular trauma scores in paediatric open globe injuries.小儿开放性眼球损伤的眼外伤评分
Br J Ophthalmol. 2014 May;98(5):664-8. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304469. Epub 2014 Feb 11.
10
Ocular trauma score at the initial evaluation of ocular trauma.眼外伤初次评估时的眼外伤评分
Cir Cir. 2010 May-Jun;78(3):209-13.