This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on Web of Science (13)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

William F. Mieler, MD; Robert A. Mittra, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115(9):1191-1192.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

BEFORE THE advent of modern vitreous surgery, penetrating trauma confined to the anterior segment had a favorable prognosis,¹ while injuries involving the posterior segment resulted in enucleation or no light perception vision in most cases.^2,3 During the early years of vitrectomy, its use in the management of severe posterior segment injuries was questioned,⁴ although currently most surgeons agree that vitreoretinal techniques are valuable in salvaging many eyes that otherwise would have been lost.

ROLE OF VITRECTOMY

The general consensus is that vitrectomy is indicated in the setting of traumatic endophthalmitis,⁵ nonmagnetic intravitreal foreign bodies,⁶ traumatic retinal detachment,^7-9 and perforating ocular injuries.⁴ The role of vitrectomy for traumatic vitreous hemorrhage without retinal detachment in open-globe injuries remains controversial, as studies^4,6 have questioned its beneficial effect. Despite this, many surgeons routinely use vitrectomy in this setting because of strong experimental evidence that hemorrhage admixed . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Milwaukee, Wis

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?