Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background Orbital cavernous venous malformations (OCVMs) are the most common primary orbital mass lesion and presenting symptoms are usually secondary to a mass effect. Surgical excision presents unique challenges and vision loss is a rare, but devastating, complication. This review aims to identify risk factors for vision loss with excision of OCVMs.
Method A systematic search of the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL was performed to May 2024, prior to data collection and risk of bias analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. 16 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria.
Results These studies identified apical location and strong adherence to apical structures, including the optic nerve, as characteristics carrying a higher risk of postoperative vision loss. Symptoms and signs with a poor visual prognosis included preoperative visual loss, relative afferent pupillary defect, optic disc abnormality and choroidal folds. Intraoperative risk factors include prolonged vascular handling and traction on the optic nerve, as well as low intraoperative diastolic blood pressure. Central retinal artery occlusion was the most common cause of vision loss.
Conclusion There are several risk factors for poor visual outcome after excision of OCVMs. Surgical and anaesthetic teams should remain cognisant of these factors, and be willing to adapt their intraoperative management as required. Further large-scale prospective studies might aid the development of management guidelines.
- Orbit
- Vision
Data availability statement
Data are available in a public, open access repository. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
X @q_clare
Contributors JP and CQ performed the search, analysed the data and formulated the draft manuscript. AJP, GER and DS reviewed and revised the draft manuscript. DS conceived the project (guarantor).
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.