Aim To compare the predictive outcome of ocular burns using two different prognostic classification systems, that is, Dua and Roper Hall classification.
Patients and methods In a prospective, randomised, controlled clinical trial, the extent of acute ocular burns in 100 patients was graded by Roper Hall and Dua classifications. Patients were randomised in two groups of 50 each to receive conventional medical therapy alone or additional amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT). Moderate burns were graded similarly (grade II and III) under both systems, while severe burns were classified differently and compared further. Baseline parameters (size of epithelial defect, corneal haze, limbal ischaemia, conjunctival involvement and visual acuity) and outcome variables (healing of epithelial defect, corneal clarity, corneal vascularisation, visual outcome and symblepharon) after 1 year were noted and compared.
Results There was no difference in terms of time taken and rate of healing of epithelial defect, but there was a significant difference in extent of corneal vascularisation between grades IV, V and VI (p<0.05). In patients who received AMT in addition to medical therapy, the degree of corneal clarity achieved was significantly better in patients with grade IV burns than either grade V (p=0.045) or grade VI (p=0.024) burns, and final visual acuity was significantly better in these patients (p=0.043). On comparison of patients with grade IV burns (with and without AMT), the outcome in terms of extent of corneal vascularisation was significantly better (p=0.0124) in patients who received AMT.
Conclusions Dua classification by providing further subclassification of grade IV ocular burns by Roper Hall into three separate grades has a superior prognostic predictive value in severe ocular burns.
- Ocular burns
- classification system
- limbal involvement
- predictive value
- final outcome
- ocular surface
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Competing interests None.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the Ethics Commitee AIIMS.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.