These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [An analysis of 148 outpatient treated occupational accidents].
    Author: Nicaeus T, Erb C, Rohrbach M, Thiel HJ.
    Journal: Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1996 Oct; 209(4):A7-11. PubMed ID: 9044956.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The most common eye injuries are non-perforating. Eye injuries in the workplace are a major cause of socioeconomical damage, morbidity and disability, despite well publicised standards for industrial eye protection. This study investigates the epidemiological and clinical aspects of 148 occupational cases. PATIENTS: At the University Eye Clinic of Tübingen, 709 non-perforating eye injuries were registered as occupational accidents between 1995 and 1996. Of these cases, 148 were analysed retrospectively per random. RESULTS: The 5 most common injuries of 148 patients (m/f = 138/10; mean age 33.4 +/- 12 years) were related to corneal foreign body injuries (35%), chemical burns (15.5%), sub-conjunctival foreign bodies (12%), thermal/ultraviolet injuries (11%) and contusions (7.4%). Of these patients, 22.3% were employed as construction workers and 16.2% as metal workers. At the time of examination the visual acuity of the traumatic eye was 0.9 +/- 0.3. The interval between the beginning of work and accident was 6.2 +/- 6.4 hours in average (0.5-13.5 h). Of all accidents, 8.5% were caused during the first hour of work; in contrast 45.5% of all accidents were caused after 6 hours of work. Another 12.4 +/- 14.5 hours (5min.-72 h; median 7 h) passed by until the patients arrived for eye examination at the Eye Clinic of Tübingen. Only 6% of all patients arrived within the first hour, and 29.7% after 12 hours. Of all cases, 30.4% received first-aid treatment in their company by the factory doctor or by the eye doctor before examination at the Eye Clinic. Only 6.8% of all patients had protective spectacles during work. Incapacity was seen in 30.4%; the average in total was 5.5 +/- 10 days. CONCLUSION: Despite the late examination at the Eye Clinic the functional loss was mostly little except after chemical burns. Nevertheless, most occupational accidents can be avoided with better protective devices in order to reduce the incidence of injuries and socioeconomical damage. Therefore an intense campaign about protective devices at the place of employment should be required. We conclude that education about safety glasses in the workplace by tradespeople and trades assistants during tasks for which goggles are recommended could considerably reduce the rate of occupational eye traumata. The data of the University Eye Clinic of Tübingen are useful to identify strategies to prevent eye injuries such as wider and better use of safety glasses and improvement in engineering controls.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]