A comparison of primary and secondary eye removal after open globe injury: A multi-centre study

Our goal was to compare the characteristics and surgical outcomes of patients who underwent primary eye removal surgery after open globe injury with those who underwent secondary eye removal surgery after open globe repair.

This was a retrospective review of subjects who underwent evisceration or enucleation within 3 months of an open globe injury, at three Level I trauma centres in three U.S. cities between July 2014 and July 2020.

19 patients underwent primary eye removal and 20 underwent secondary eye removal. The most common mechanism of trauma in patients who underwent primary eye removal was gunshot. Compared to the secondary eye removal group, patients who underwent primary eye removal were significantly more likely to be male; have longer hospital stays; be discharged to another care facility rather than home; have facial fractures; suffer intracranial injury; and be unable to consent themselves for surgery. Both groups had a low surgical complication rate with one case of socket contracture in each group.

The standard of care for an open globe injury is prompt repair, but there are occasions when the globe is so damaged that it is deemed unrepairable. We found that globes that required primary eye removal were more often due to gunshot wounds, and that there was greater morbidity associated with these injuries. The authors' preferred surgical approach was evisceration with placement of a silicone sphere; patient outcomes demonstrate that this method was found to be safe, with a low complication and infection rate.