TY - JOUR
T1 - International Consensuses and Guidelines on the Etiology, Diagnosis and Management of Intraocular Foreign Bodies (IOFBs) by the Academy of Asia-Pacific Professors of Ophthalmology (AAPPO), the Asia-Pacific Vitreo-retina Society (APVRS), and the Academia Retina Internationalis (ARI)
AU - Li, Kenneth K.W.
AU - Wong, Daniel H.T.
AU - Au, Andrea C.K.
AU - Radke, Nishant V.
AU - Agrawal, Rupesh
AU - Azad, Rajvardhan
AU - Caputo, Georges
AU - Chen, Haoyu
AU - Choovuthayakorn, Janejit
AU - Das, Taraprasad
AU - Fong, Kenneth
AU - Huang, Xin
AU - Justin, Grant A.
AU - Lai, Chi Chun
AU - Lee, Eun Kyoung
AU - Lim, Jennifer I.
AU - Lou, Bingsheng
AU - Mieler, William F.
AU - Ruamviboonsuk, Paisan
AU - Watson, Stephanie
AU - Yan, Hua
AU - Yu, Seung Young
AU - Zhang, Feng
AU - Lam, Dennis S.C.
N1 - Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2026/1
Y1 - 2026/1
N2 - PURPOSE: To discuss the critical aspects and establish a consensus among experts regarding intraocular foreign bodies (IOFB) management, and to standardize clinical management for IOFB cases in order to ensure consistent and optimal clinical outcomes. DESIGN: A modified Delphi method to reach a consensus among international experts. METHODS: An expert panel was formed by the Academy of Asia-Pacific Professors of Ophthalmology (AAPPO), the Asia-Pacific Vitreo-retina Society (APVRS), and the Academia Retina Internationalis (ARI) to identify the controversy and establish consensus and statement on the management of IOFB. The core group of the panel gathered, reviewed, discussed, and formulated the statements. The statements were rated by the expert panel based on a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree). A consensus was reached when at least 75% of the experts voted either “agree” or “strongly agree” for a statement. RESULTS: Twenty four international experts from 11 countries/territories participated. Fifty four consensus statements were reviewed in the following 8 sections: diagnostic controversies, IOFB characterization controversies, management controversies, prophylactic measures controversies, post-extraction management controversies, special population considerations, outcomes assessment controversies, and future directions. The expert panel showed good agreement in all sections. Consensus was reached for 49 out of 54 statements, while the final score was less than 75% for 5 statements. CONCLUSION: The strong majority of consensus statements serves as a useful guidance, enabling clinicians to approach IOFB removal in a systemic manner with more confidence and improve patient outcomes. The varying levels of agreement in some statements underscore remaining uncertainties in IOFB clinical management.
AB - PURPOSE: To discuss the critical aspects and establish a consensus among experts regarding intraocular foreign bodies (IOFB) management, and to standardize clinical management for IOFB cases in order to ensure consistent and optimal clinical outcomes. DESIGN: A modified Delphi method to reach a consensus among international experts. METHODS: An expert panel was formed by the Academy of Asia-Pacific Professors of Ophthalmology (AAPPO), the Asia-Pacific Vitreo-retina Society (APVRS), and the Academia Retina Internationalis (ARI) to identify the controversy and establish consensus and statement on the management of IOFB. The core group of the panel gathered, reviewed, discussed, and formulated the statements. The statements were rated by the expert panel based on a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree). A consensus was reached when at least 75% of the experts voted either “agree” or “strongly agree” for a statement. RESULTS: Twenty four international experts from 11 countries/territories participated. Fifty four consensus statements were reviewed in the following 8 sections: diagnostic controversies, IOFB characterization controversies, management controversies, prophylactic measures controversies, post-extraction management controversies, special population considerations, outcomes assessment controversies, and future directions. The expert panel showed good agreement in all sections. Consensus was reached for 49 out of 54 statements, while the final score was less than 75% for 5 statements. CONCLUSION: The strong majority of consensus statements serves as a useful guidance, enabling clinicians to approach IOFB removal in a systemic manner with more confidence and improve patient outcomes. The varying levels of agreement in some statements underscore remaining uncertainties in IOFB clinical management.
KW - Academia
KW - Academies and Institutes
KW - Asia
KW - Consensus
KW - Delphi Technique
KW - Eye Foreign Bodies/diagnosis
KW - Eye Injuries, Penetrating/diagnosis
KW - Humans
KW - Ophthalmology/organization & administration
KW - Societies, Medical
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105020880030&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ajo.2025.10.002
DO - 10.1016/j.ajo.2025.10.002
M3 - Article
C2 - 41067482
AN - SCOPUS:105020880030
SN - 0002-9394
VL - 281
SP - 526
EP - 556
JO - American Journal of Ophthalmology
JF - American Journal of Ophthalmology
ER -