Ophthalmic Pyogenic Granulomas Treated With Topical Timolol-Clinical Features of 17 Cases.

PURPOSE: Topical timolol has been increasingly demonstrated to be an effective treatment for pyogenic granulomas (PG). The authors review the treatment outcomes of 17 patients with ocular PG treated with topical timolol. METHODS: Retrospective interventional study of 17 patients with ocular PGs treated with timolol 0.5% solution. Patient demographics, clinical features, treatment response, and recurrence were noted. RESULTS: Nine females and 8 males with a mean age of 23 years (range, 3-67 years) were included. Mean duration of disease prior to treatment was 3.81 months (range, 0.25-11 months). Etiologies included chalazia (12 cases, 71%), postsurgical (4, 24%) and trauma (1, 6%). Five patients (29%) had treatment with topical steroids prior to presentation. Fifteen patients (88%) had PG located on the palpebral conjunctiva and 2 (12%) involving the bulbar conjunctiva. Mean lesion size was 5.06 × 6.06 mm (range, 3-8 × 3-18 mm). Fifteen patients (88%) had complete lesion resolution with a mean treatment duration of 3.07 weeks (range, 2-5 weeks) and no adverse events or recurrences with a mean follow up of 9.47 months (range, 6-27 months). Two patients (12%) underwent lesion excision after 6 weeks of timolol failed to yield resolution. CONCLUSION: Topical timolol appears to be a well-tolerated nonsurgical treatment of ocular PG in both children and adults. Clinicians may wish to consider topical timolol to treat PG as opposed to topical steroids, given the inherent risk of steroid response ocular hypertension and the difficulty to measure intraocular pressure in younger children who require general anesthesia for excision.

Eye injuries from electrical weapon probes: Incidents, prevalence, and legal implications.

PURPOSE: While generally reducing morbidity and mortality, electrical weapons have risks associated with their usage, including burn injuries and trauma associated with uncontrolled fall impacts. However, the prevalence of significant eye injury has not been investigated. METHODS: We searched for incidents of penetrating eye injury from TASER® conducted electrical weapon (CEW) probes via open source media, litigation filings, and a survey of CEW law-enforcement master instructors. RESULTS: We report 20 previously-unpublished cases of penetrating eye injury from electrical weapon probes in law-enforcement field uses. Together with the 8 previously published cases, there are a total of 28 cases out of 3.44 million field uses, giving a demonstrated CEW field-use risk of penetrating eye injury of approximately 1:123 000. Confidence limits [85 000, 178 000] by Wilson score interval. There have been 18 cases of total unilateral blindness or enucleation. We also present legal decisions on this topic. CONCLUSIONS: The use of electrical weapons presents a rare but real risk of total or partial unilateral blindness from electrical weapon probes. Catastrophic eye injuries appear to be the dominant non-fatal complication of electronic control.