FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2947494098> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2947494098 endingPage "e277" @default.
• W2947494098 startingPage "e273" @default.
• W2947494098 abstract "Body modification is the practice of deliberate alterations to the human body, such as tattoos, piercings, and scarification, to achieve self-expression or control over one's body.1Wohlrab S. Stahl J. Kappeler P.M. Modifying the body: motivations for getting tattooed and pierced.Body Image. 2007; 4: 87-95Crossref PubMed Scopus (141) Google Scholar The “body modification movement” has seen an increasingly popular practice of tattooing the eye. Typically, ink is injected into the subconjunctival space with pigmentation of the episclera and/or sclera. This has resulted in complications ranging from conjunctival edema and nodules2Brodie J. El Galhud H. Bates A. A case of episcleral tattooing—an emerging body modification trend.BMC Ophthalmol. 2015; 15: 95Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar to more serious complications such as orbital cellulitis,3Duarte G. Cheja R. Pachón D. Ramírez C. Arellanes L. Case series: two cases of eyeball tattoos with short-term complications.Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep. 2017; 5: 26-28Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar scleritis, panuveitis,4Jalil A. Ivanova T. Bonshek R. Patton N. Unique case of eyeball tattooing leading to ocular penetration and intraocular tattoo pigment deposition.Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015; 43: 594-596Crossref PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar and secondary glaucoma.5Cruz NFS da Santos KS Farah MDL Felberg S Conjunctival tattoo with inadvertent globe penetration and associated complications.Cornea. 2017; 0: 1-3Google Scholar Here we present 3 Canadian cases of ocular tattooing resulting in complications ranging from scleral laceration and serious corneal and anterior segment injury to endophthalmitis requiring enucleation. These cases reinforce the need for specific legislature surrounding ocular tattooing in Canadian provinces. A 39-year-old female (case 1) presented with severe left eye pain after allowing her partner (case 2) to attempt scleral tattooing at home using tattoo ink ordered from an online source (StarBrite, Somers, Conn). They did not have access to topical anaesthetics and used a 31-gauge insulin needle to perform the tattoo. She was otherwise healthy and did not take any ocular or systemic medications. On examination, her visual acuity was 6/6 in both eyes, with intraocular pressures of 18 mm Hg in the right eye and 13 mm Hg in the left eye. Slit-lamp examination revealed a shallow left anterior chamber and a Seidel-positive puncture wound temporally, where there was blue tattoo dye staining. Dilated fundoscopic examination findings were within normal limits bilaterally without any obvious evidence of intraocular penetration of tattoo dye in the left eye. To allow a complete examination and closure of the apparent wound, she was taken to the operating room. Despite an extensive exploration, a leaking scleral puncture wound was not found. The conjunctiva was closed in a watertight closure technique with 9-0 Vicryl. Postoperatively, her anterior chamber deepened, and her temporal sclera was Seidel-negative. An epithelial defect required a temporary bandage contact lens. She recovered well in the next week but was subsequently lost to follow-up. A 41-year-old male (case 2) presented with vision loss in his right eye after inadvertent globe penetration and intraocular injection of blue tattoo ink (StarBrite) during self-administration of the dye. After watching a YouTube video, the patient attempted to tattoo his lateral right sclera. Increased force had been applied to the plunger to clear an obstruction, which resulted in the needle penetrating his eye. He injected approximately 1 mL of blue tattoo ink into his eye. On examination, his uncorrected visual acuity was light perception in the right eye and 6/6 in the left eye. Intraocular pressures were 44 and 12 mm Hg in the right and left eyes, respectively. Slit-lamp examination of the right eye revealed blue tattoo dye filling the anterior chamber (Fig. 1A) and evidence of inferotemporal needle penetration (Fig. 1B). There was no posterior view, and B-scan ultrasonography showed mildly echogenic opacities just anterior to the retina. Examination findings of the left eye were within normal limits, except for subconjunctival and episcleral blue tattoo dye inferonasally. Computed tomography of the orbits revealed a hyperdense material in the anterior right globe (Fig. 1C, D). The patient was taken to the operating room for an anterior chamber washout and injection of antibiotics (ceftazidime 2 mg/0.1 mL and vancomycin 1 mg/0.1 mL) in his right eye (Supplementary Video 1, available online). A total volume of 850 mL of balanced salt solution was used to wash out the blue dye and a white, chalky material. The inferior one-third of the corneal endothelium was stained blue. The patient tolerated the procedure well, but by postoperative day 1 the anterior chamber had refilled with blue dye. The anterior chamber washout was repeated and a pars plana vitrectomy performed. Hidden pockets of blue dye welled up into Berger's space while performing the vitrectomy. All dye was removed from within the eye, and the patient was started on topical timolol maleate 0.5% BID in addition to hourly prednisolone acetate 1%, atropine 1% BID, and ofloxacin QID. The vitreous sample was negative for bacterial growth. Two days later, the patient returned with complete right corneal staining (Fig. 2A) and microcystic edema, with evidence of a fibrinous reaction in the anterior chamber. Due to suspicions of possible endophthalmitis, he was given an additional dose of intravitreal ceftazidime and vancomycin, and tissue plasminogen factor to the anterior chamber. He continued to have persistent severe corneal edema with a central corneal thickness of approximately 1000 µm, suggesting corneal endothelial decompensation. His inflammation improved, but he returned 4 days later with zonular dehiscence and lens luxation (Fig. 2B). The patient had a pars plana lensectomy and insertion of a sulcus intraocular lens. On postoperative day 1, the visual acuity of his right eye was 6/120, improving to 6/60 with pinhole correction. He was thereafter lost to follow-up. A 24-year-old male (case 3) presented with a history of decreased vision and significant pain in his right eye for 3 days after an attempted scleral tattoo. The patient described that the tattoo artist used a fine-gauge needle on a syringe to inject organic, metal-free tattoo ink (Fusion Tattoo Ink, Riverside, Calif) by holding the needle perpendicular to the globe. An injection of tattoo ink was performed on the medial aspect of the globe without complication, but the second inferior injection was associated with significant pain and immediate decrease in vision. The procedure was stopped at that point, but no medical attention was sought until 3 days later. On examination, he had light perception visual acuity in the affected eye and there was significant conjunctival chemosis with black subconjunctival staining. The anterior chamber was filled with black ink with no posterior view (Fig. 3). Findings on B-scan ultrasonography examination were consistent with vitritis, with an abscess on the posterior pole of the eye. An anterior chamber washout, pars plana vitrectomy, and lensectomy (due to lens damage from the penetrating needle) were performed with intravitreal injection of antibiotics (vancomycin 1 mg/0.2 mL and ceftazidime 2.25 mg/0.1 mL) and steroids (dexamethasone 1 mg/0.1 mL) (Supplementary Video 2, available online). Postoperatively, the patient received topical moxifloxacin drops QID and erythromycin ointment QID, as well as oral moxifloxacin 400 mg once daily. There was no improvement in his visual acuity, and the cornea had significant grade 4+ edema with folds in Descemet's membrane, as well as endothelial staining. Bacterial cultures of the vitreous fluid were positive for Alcaligenes faecalis, susceptible to ceftazidime. An additional vitreous tap and injections of ceftazidime and dexamethasone were performed on postoperative day 2 due to increasing pain and lack of clinical improvement. Additionally, a new abscess was revealed on B-scan ultrasonography (Fig. 4). Intravitreal injections of ceftazidime and dexamethasone were repeated 5 days later as poor visualization precluded any attempts at vitrectomy. The corneal edema improved to allow a second pars plana vitrectomy on postoperative day 10. Endolaser was applied to the inferior retina at the site of the intraocular penetration. On follow-up, 3 weeks after his initial presentation, the patients’ vision remained at light perception with significant pain and new phthisical changes. He had persistent corneal edema and endothelial staining, and a new a retinal detachment was identified on B-scan. The patient was referred for enucleation, which was performed 2 months after the initial injury. Pathology specimens demonstrated staining of the inner retina, sclera, and the corneal endothelium, as well as endothelial cell loss and corneal edema (Fig. 5). We present 3 cases of ocular tattooing that demonstrate a broad spectrum of possible complications. The tattoo ink used by the first 2 patients contained titanium dioxide and copper phthalocyanine.6Starbrite Ink Material Safety Data Sheet 2005:4. https://www.painfulpleasures.com/body_jewelry/gallery/MSDS/starbrite_msds/18_COUNTRY_BLUE.pdf Accessed October20, 2017.Google Scholar Titanium dioxide nanoparticles have been found to increase inflammation in vascular endothelial cells through release of superoxide7Han SG Newsome B Hennig B Titanium dioxide nanoparticles increase inflammatory responses in vascular endothelial cells.Toxicology. 2013; 306: 1-8Crossref PubMed Scopus (80) Google Scholar and cause increased leakage.8Setyawati MI Tay CY Chia SL et al.Titanium dioxide nanomaterials cause endothelial cell leakiness by disrupting the homophilic interaction of VE–cadherin.Nat Commun. 2013; 4: 1673Crossref PubMed Scopus (347) Google Scholar It is possible that the titanium dioxide in the tattoo dye could cause similar effects on the corneal endothelium, which could explain the extent of the corneal edema. Copper phthalocyanine is a structurally similar dye to copper(II) phthalocyanine-tetrasulfonic acid, which has been found to cause posterior uveitis and retinal ganglion cell loss in an in vivo animal model.9Schuettauf F Haritoglou C May CA et al.Administration of novel dyes for intraocular surgery: an in vivo toxicity animal study.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006; 47: 3573-3578Crossref PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar In combination with titanium dioxide, this could be contributory to the severe inflammatory reaction seen in the second patient. The labelling on the ink used in the patient from case 3 lists pigments from unspecified “organic sources” in addition to containing distilled water, witch hazel, and alcohol. The presentation of A. faecalis endophthalmitis, with abscess formation, suggests contamination of either the tattoo equipment or the ink itself. A. faecalis is a gram-negative bacillus that is present in soil and contaminated water, and is a rare cause of postoperative endophthalmitis or keratitis.10Kaliaperumal S Srinivasan R Gupta A Parija SC Postoperative endophthalmitis due to an unusual pathogen.Alcaligenes faecalis. Eye. 2006; 20: 968-969Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar, 11Tayeri T Kelly LD. Alcaligenes faecalis corneal ulcer in a patient with cicatricial pemphigoid.Am J Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 255-256Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar, 12Pal SS Panigrahi PK Roy R Nandi K Das S Endophthalmitis caused by alcaligenes faecalis: a case series.Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2013; 21: 446-448Crossref PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar In a case series of 5 patients with A. faecalis endophthalmitis,12Pal SS Panigrahi PK Roy R Nandi K Das S Endophthalmitis caused by alcaligenes faecalis: a case series.Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2013; 21: 446-448Crossref PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar visual acuity outcomes varied from 6/24 in 2 patients, to 6/190 to 6/380 in 2 patients, to no light perception in the fifth patient. The poor visual outcomes and eventual enucleation of our third case are consistent with the poor outcomes in A. faecalis endophthalmitis. Ophthalmologists need to be aware of the risks and poor outcomes that may result from attempted scleral tattooing, whether it is self-inflicted (cases 1 and 2) or done by a commercial tattoo artist (case 3). The individuals performing the tattooing may not have adequate knowledge of the eye's anatomy. Furthermore, unregulated access to tattoo ink on the internet may pose additional safety risks. Within North America, only certain U.S. states have any legislation restricting tattooing in or around the eyes. For example, in Georgia, it is “unlawful to tattoo within 1 inch of the eye socket” (Ga. Code § 16-12-5, 2010), whereas in Oklahoma, it is illegal to perform scleral tattooing (21 OK Stat § 21-842.1, 2014). Indiana has also recently passed legislation banning scleral tattooing.13Associated PressIndiana lawmakers move to ban eyeball tattoos after Ottawa woman's mishap.CBC News. 2018; https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/indiana-eyeball-tattoo-law-1.4557393Date accessed: May 15, 2018Google Scholar Canadian body art legislation is province-dependent and does not restrict which areas of the body can be tattooed. Nova Scotia specifically did not have any laws regulating the health and safety of body art until the Safe Body Art Act was passed in 2011 and does not contain any anatomical restrictions. This piece of legislation was not proclaimed until March 6, 2018, meaning that it will not be enforceable until February 1, 2019.14Nova Scotia Health and WellnessSafe Body Art Act Effective February 2019. Prov Nov Scotia, 2018https://novascotia.ca/news/release/?id=20180307004Date accessed: May 15, 2018Google Scholar Ontario is the only province to have recently amended their Health Protection and Promotion Act to include prohibitions of ocular tattoos and jewelry (Bill 160, Schedule 3) largely due to a high-profile case that occurred in Ottawa in 2017.15The Canadian PressEyeball tattoos could lead to blindness and severe infections, doctors warn.CBC News. 2017; https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/tattoo-eyeball-1.4313440Date accessed: May 15, 2018Google Scholar Alberta does not have any specific legislation regarding ocular tattoos or body modification procedures. With the rise in popularity of ocular tattooing in Canada, ophthalmologists should be aware of the serious morbidities associated with ocular tattooing and assist provincial regulatory bodies in establishing appropriate public safety measures. The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article. https://www.canadianjournalofophthalmology.ca/cms/asset/efda5af7-5bbd-413d-bf1c-bf0954f4bb02/mmc1.mp4Loading ... Download .mp4 (11.97 MB) Help with .mp4 files https://www.canadianjournalofophthalmology.ca/cms/asset/c4d41e98-16a3-46eb-b596-abfbb1b6825f/mmc2.mp4Loading ... Download .mp4 (46.53 MB) Help with .mp4 files Download .xml (.0 MB) Help with xml files" @default.
• W2947494098 created "2019-06-07" @default.
• W2947494098 creator A5000146107 @default.
• W2947494098 creator A5008316811 @default.
• W2947494098 creator A5022260938 @default.
• W2947494098 creator A5028694779 @default.
• W2947494098 creator A5034715542 @default.
• W2947494098 creator A5050992975 @default.
• W2947494098 creator A5058293279 @default.
• W2947494098 creator A5060512077 @default.
• W2947494098 date "2019-12-01" @default.
• W2947494098 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2947494098 title "Complications of ocular tattooing: a Canadian case series" @default.
• W2947494098 cites W1955082695 @default.
• W2947494098 cites W1963605811 @default.
• W2947494098 cites W1974409872 @default.
• W2947494098 cites W1985436709 @default.
• W2947494098 cites W1987720329 @default.
• W2947494098 cites W2039411398 @default.
• W2947494098 cites W2084677796 @default.
• W2947494098 cites W2103508792 @default.
• W2947494098 cites W2145865499 @default.
• W2947494098 cites W2549663527 @default.
• W2947494098 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2019.03.013" @default.
• W2947494098 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31836111" @default.
• W2947494098 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2947494098 type Work @default.
• W2947494098 sameAs 2947494098 @default.
• W2947494098 citedByCount "9" @default.
• W2947494098 countsByYear W29474940982020 @default.
• W2947494098 countsByYear W29474940982021 @default.
• W2947494098 countsByYear W29474940982022 @default.
• W2947494098 countsByYear W29474940982023 @default.
• W2947494098 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2947494098 hasAuthorship W2947494098A5000146107 @default.
• W2947494098 hasAuthorship W2947494098A5008316811 @default.
• W2947494098 hasAuthorship W2947494098A5022260938 @default.
• W2947494098 hasAuthorship W2947494098A5028694779 @default.
• W2947494098 hasAuthorship W2947494098A5034715542 @default.
• W2947494098 hasAuthorship W2947494098A5050992975 @default.
• W2947494098 hasAuthorship W2947494098A5058293279 @default.
• W2947494098 hasAuthorship W2947494098A5060512077 @default.
• W2947494098 hasBestOaLocation W29474940981 @default.
• W2947494098 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W2947494098 hasConcept C119767625 @default.
• W2947494098 hasConcept C127313418 @default.
• W2947494098 hasConcept C143724316 @default.
• W2947494098 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2947494098 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2947494098 hasConceptScore W2947494098C118487528 @default.
• W2947494098 hasConceptScore W2947494098C119767625 @default.
• W2947494098 hasConceptScore W2947494098C127313418 @default.
• W2947494098 hasConceptScore W2947494098C143724316 @default.
• W2947494098 hasConceptScore W2947494098C151730666 @default.
• W2947494098 hasConceptScore W2947494098C71924100 @default.
• W2947494098 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2947494098 hasLocation W29474940981 @default.
• W2947494098 hasOpenAccess W2947494098 @default.
• W2947494098 hasPrimaryLocation W29474940981 @default.
• W2947494098 hasRelatedWork W1025112007 @default.
• W2947494098 hasRelatedWork W2018987202 @default.
• W2947494098 hasRelatedWork W2464763775 @default.
• W2947494098 hasRelatedWork W2468673121 @default.
• W2947494098 hasRelatedWork W2647641574 @default.
• W2947494098 hasRelatedWork W2993487851 @default.
• W2947494098 hasRelatedWork W3111144589 @default.
• W2947494098 hasRelatedWork W831423387 @default.
• W2947494098 hasRelatedWork W2588051742 @default.
• W2947494098 hasRelatedWork W3028789648 @default.
• W2947494098 hasVolume "54" @default.
• W2947494098 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2947494098 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2947494098 magId "2947494098" @default.
• W2947494098 workType "article" @default.