ArticleDie Ophthalmologie2023
[Diagnostics and treatment of organic intraorbital foreign bodies].
Article in Die Ophthalmologie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Case Report: an unusual case of a penetrating intracranial metallic foreign body removed via surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOrbital injuries with organic foreign bodies are a clinical challenge as they can cause a variety of complications and sometimes lead to irreversible visual impairment. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe report five consecutive cases of patients with organic orbital foreign bodies who presented between 2012 and 2022. Documented parameters include age, gender, time of injury, mechanism of injury, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), presence of pain, restriction of motility, performed imaging, location and type of foreign body, treatment and complications.
resultsThe mean patient age was 61.8 ± 32.3 years and the gender ratio was 4:1 (female:male). In 4 cases the injury had been reported on average 4.6 days (0/14 days min/max) previously. Best corrected visual acuity at first presentation was 0.5 ± 0.2 decimal and after a mean follow-up of 12.7 months (0.5/38 months min/max) at last presentation 0.67 ± 0.3 decimal (p = 0.2). The reason for initial presentation was pain (n = 3) and/or double vision (n = 2). All patients underwent computer tomography (CT). The diagnosis was confirmed in two cases by means of CT. In all five cases the foreign body material could be completely surgically removed, while one patient needed repeated surgery due to retained foreign body material. The organic foreign body material included wood (4) and wax (1). In two cases, a foreign body-induced infection was successfully treated with systemic antibiotics. There were no other complications.
conclusionIn orbital trauma a thorough wound exploration must be performed, especially if the mechanism of injury is uncertain and residual foreign bodies or a perforation injury cannot be excluded. The imaging of choice is CT, which may have to be performed again in the postoperative course.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.