Lima GV, Alonso GA

Language: Spanish
References: 9
Page: 150-155
PDF size: 456.49 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background. The system for classifying mechanical injuries of the eye, developed in 1997, is based on four parameters (type, grade, pupil, zone) that could be evaluated at primary approach. The most frequent limitations for its use by non-ophthalmologists were identified, in order to learn whether they could be overcome by means of clinical skills acquired at Medical School. Method. A questionnaire was applied to basic specialty residents, about the most common problems identified at teaching and applying the system. Rate and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of limitations were calculated, and those with rate equal or greater than 50% were identified. Results. Among fifty-nine questionnaires applied, the were higher than 50% rates in: identification of open-globe zone (82.8%), concept (78%) and detection (77.4%) of afferent papillary defect, resource lack (visual acuity chart [77.2%], ophthalmoscope [65.5%]), identification of extruded intraocular tissue (64.3%), and of the ocular wall (50.8%). Ocular fundus and consensual reflex evaluation, as well as agent identification did not reach 50%. Discussion. The rate of limitations secondary to operational definitions overtook that of those secondary to clinical skills; this could be overcome by correlating definitions with previous clinical knowledge. Although resource limitations were reported frequently, the clinical skills of those physicians evaluated could allow them to apply the system for classifying mechanical injuries of the eye.

REFERENCES

1. Pieramici DJ, Sternberg P, Aaberg TM et al. A system for classifying mechanical injuries of the eye (globe). Am J Ophthalmol 1997; 123: 820-31.

2. Pieramici DJ, Eong KG, Sternberg P Jr, Marsh MJ. The prognostic significance of a system for classifying mechanical injuries of the eye (globe) in open-globe injuries. J Trauma 2003; 54: 750-4.

3. Kuhn F, Morris R, Witherspoon CD, Mester V. The Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology system (BETT). J Fr Ophtalmol 2004; 27: 206-10.

4. Lima GV, Rodríguez GM. Detección de daño ocular ¿Búsqueda de lesiones específicas o clasificación estandarizada de trauma? Trauma 2003; 6: 49-54.

5. Riordan-Eva P, Whitcher JP. Oftalmología general de Vaughan y Asbury. 13a. Ed. México: Manual Moderno; 2004.

6. Mattox KL, Feliciano DV, Moore EE. Trauma. 4a. Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2000.

7. Colegio Americano de Cirujanos, Comité de Trauma. Curso de apoyo vital avanzado en trauma para médicos. 6a. Ed. Chicago: Colegio Americano de Cirujanos; 1997.

8. Lima GV. Traumatismo ocular. Comparación entre las lesiones evaluadas por el ATLS y las de una serie nacional. ¿Utilidad de una clasificación estandarizada? Cir Ciruj 2002; 70: 36-9.

9. Lima GV, Caballero PM. Trauma ocular: distribución de acuerdo con la clasificación estandarizada. Trauma 2002; 5: 5-10.