gms | German Medical Science

102. Jahrestagung der DOG

Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft e. V.

23. bis 26.09.2004, Berlin

Retrospective analysis of penetrating eye injuries on the basis of the "ocular trauma classification"

Meeting Abstract

Search Medline for

  • corresponding author S. Höhn - Department of Ophthalmology, University of Ulm
  • M.M.C. Zorn - Department of Ophthalmology, University of Ulm
  • C.W. Spraul - Department of Ophthalmology, University of Ulm

Evidenzbasierte Medizin - Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. 102. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft. Berlin, 23.-26.09.2004. Düsseldorf, Köln: German Medical Science; 2004. Doc04dogP 196

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at:

Published: September 22, 2004

© 2004 Höhn et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.




The Ocular Trauma Classification (OTC) was developed for the classification of ocular injuries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of the parameters initial visual acuitiy, intraocular foreign body and localization of the injury for their influence on final visual outcome. This study was performed on the basis of a patient collective with penetrating injuries at the University of Ulm.


We retrospectively analysed the charts of 156 patients (139 male and 17 female) with penetrating injuries admitted to our hospital in the years 1996-200 and classified the pattern of injury according to the OTC. In particular it was of interest, whether the parameter of the OCT did allow a forecast of final visual acuity.


The patients were 3 - 89 years old (average 36.5 years) and were operated on in average 1.6 times (range, 1-6 times). The stratification of the initial visual acuity on the basis of the OTC into 5 degrees had clearly a prognostic relevance, although the difference between degrees II (visual acuity 20/50 to 20/100) and III (visual acuity 19/100 to 5/200) in our patient collective was relatively small. The presence of an intraocular foreign body was associated with a significant worse final visual outcome. The localization of the penetration displayed a poorer prognosis the more posterior the penetration occurred, i.e. there were significant differences between zone 1 (only corneal), zone 2 (corneoscleral, < 5 mm behind the limbus) and zone 3 (= 5 mm posterior to the limbus).


We were able to confirm the criteria of the OTC to be relevant for final visual outcome in our study population, i.e. a classification of penetrating ocular injuries should be performed on the basis of initial visual acuity, presence of an intraocular foreign body and the localization of the wound. Further studies should address the issue of weighting these criteria in order to be able to form a summary score comparable to the classification of complex injuries in the traumatology (e.g. Glasgow coma scale).