›› 2012, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (2): 181-.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2012.02.012

• Original article (Clinical research) • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Application of strong magnet in removal of intravitreal metal foreign bodies

ZHENG Yong-zheng1, XIE Mao-song2, LUO Da-wei3   

  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology, the Affiliated People's Hospital of Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fuzhou 350004, China；2.Department of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350004, China；3.Department of Ophthalmology, the First People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200080, China
  • Online:2012-02-28 Published:2012-02-28
  • Supported by:

    Key Chinese Medicine Research Project of Fujian Provincial Health Bureau, wzzyb0904；Shanghai Key Laboratory for Ocular Fundus Diseases Foundation, 07Z22911

PDF (PC)

1166

Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the outcomes of removal of intravitreal metal foreign bodies with strong magnet. Methods Intravitreal foreign bodies in 70 patients (73 eyes) were divided into three categories, which were foreign bodies in the wall of eyeball, foreign bodies in the anterior vitreous body and foreign bodies in the posterior vitreous body. Foreign bodies in each category were randomly removed with electromagnet (electromagnet group) or strong magnet(strong magnet group). Electromagnet group included 5 eyes with foreign bodies in the wall of eyeball, 18 eyes with foreign bodies in the anterior vitreous body and 15 eyes with foreign bodies in the posterior vitreous body. Strong magnet group included 4 eyes with foreign bodies in the wall of eyeball, 17 eyes with foreign bodies in the anterior vitreous body and 14 eyes with foreign bodies in the posterior vitreous body. The magnetic flux density of electromagnet and strong magnet were measured by teslameter. The removal rate, time required for removal and incidences of complications after removal of each category of foreign bodies were compared. Results The magnetic flux density of strong magnet was similar to that of electromagnet at the distance of 0-5 cm. There was no significant difference in the removal rates and time required for removal of three categories of foreign bodies between two groups (P>0.05). There was also no significant difference in the incidences of cataract, vitreous hemorrhage and endophthalmitis after removal of three categories of foreign bodies between two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion The outcome of removal of intravitreal metal foreign bodies with strong magnet is similar to that with electromagnet, while the application of strong magnet is more economical and practical.

Key words: intravitreal foreign body, operation, strong magnet, electromagnet