Eye-wall resection

Abstract

In this retrospective study, the authors reviewed the ocular retention rates, visual results, and metastases in uveal tumors managed with eye-wall resection techniques performed by a single surgeon. A total of 132 eyes were scheduled for eye-wall resection surgery. Mean patient age was 52 years (range, 11 to 86 years). Tumors involved the iris alone in 17 cases, the iris-ciliary body in 53, the ciliary body alone in 16, and the choroid (ciliochoroidal, iris-ciliary body-choroid, or choroid) in 46 cases). A total of 114 eyes harbored melanomas; tumors located more posteriorly were more likely to have epithelioid cells (P < .05). Mean follow-up was 6 years. Mean number of clock hours in iris and iris-ciliary body tumors was 3.5. In tumors that involved the choroid, the mean largest diameter was 12.6 mm and the mean thickness was 8.2 mm. Ninety-three of 132 eyes were retained. Histologic assessment of surgical margins did not correlate with either evidence of tumor in enucleated eyes or metastatic disease. Surgical margins of tumors located more anteriorly were more likely to be clear on histologic evaluation (P < .05). Approximately 56% of retained eyes had a final visual acuity of 20/40 or better; visual results were significantly better in tumors located more anteriorly (P < .05). All retained eyes with iris tumors had a final visual acuity of 20/40 or better. In tumors that involved the choroid, 8 of 25 retained eyes kept visual acuity of 20/40 or better. Metastases developed in 8 patients; all metastatic events developed in patients with tumors that involved the choroid, and 7 of 8 were mixed cell melanomas. Seventy percent of eyes were retained, and 56% of these had a final visual acuity of 20/40 or better. Only 7% of patients with uveal melanoma developed metastatic disease (mean follow-up, 6 years). The authors conclude that survival did not appear to be compromised with eye-wall resection and in very thick melanomas located more posteriorly, ocular retention and visual results appeared to be better than that attained with radiation alone.—Thomas J. Liesegang