Material risk: vitreoretinal surgery, evisceration, enucleation and sympathetic ophthalmia-where are we currently?
Eye (Lond) 2023;
37:3542-3550. [PMID:
37198435 PMCID:
PMC10686393 DOI:
10.1038/s41433-023-02562-4]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2022] [Revised: 04/04/2023] [Accepted: 04/24/2023] [Indexed: 05/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Sympathetic ophthalmia (SO) is known to occur after severe penetrating eye injury, evisceration and even enucleation surgery. Recent evidence suggests that a greater risk lies after multiple vitreoretinal procedures. The risk of SO following evisceration is only minimally greater than that following enucleation surgery. This review evaluates literature on SO to date and provides figures for the risk of developing SO for the purposes of the consent process. The issue of SO and Material Risk following vitreoretinal surgery is reviewed and figures for the purposes of consent are outlined. This is of particular relevance for patients in whom the contralateral eye is and will likely remain the better seeing eye. Sympathetic ophthalmitis is known to occur after severe penetrating eye injury, after evisceration and enucleation. More recently, sympathetic ophthalmitis has been recognised to occur after vitreoretinal surgery. This article reviews the evidence on material risk when consenting patients for elective and emergency eye procedures after ocular trauma or surgery. When a globe needs to be removed because of irreparable ocular injury, previous publications dictated the procedure to be an enucleation because of the fear of an increased risk of SO after an evisceration. Perhaps the issue of material risk of sympathetic ophthalmia (SO) remains over-emphasised by ophthalmic plastic surgeons and under-recognised by vitreoretinal surgeons during the consent process for evisceration, enucleation and vitreoretinal surgery. Antecedent trauma and number of previous surgeries may actually be a more significant risk factor than the type of eye removal. Recent medicolegal cases also help us understand the importance of the discussion of this risk. We present our current understanding of the risk of SO after different procedures and suggest how this information may be included in a patient consent.
Collapse