Importance Ocular trauma terminology should be periodically updated to enable comprehensive capturing and monitoring of ocular trauma in clinical and research settings. Objective To update terminology for globe and adnexal trauma. Design, Setting, and Participants A 2-round modified Delphi survey was conducted from January 1 to July 31, 2021, using an expert panel, including 69 ophthalmologists identified through their membership in ophthalmology (globe and adnexal trauma) societies. Consensus was defined as at least 67% expert agreement. A steering committee developed questions after identifying gaps in the current terminology via a targeted literature review. Round 1 sought consensus on existing and newly proposed terminology, and round 2 focused on unresolved questions from round 1. Experts included ophthalmologists who had managed, on average, 52 globe or adnexal trauma cases throughout their careers and/or published a total of 5 or more globe or adnexal trauma-related peer-reviewed articles. Main Outcomes and Measures Expert consensus on ocular and adnexal terms. Results A total of 69 experts participated in and completed round 1 of the survey. All 69 participants who completed round 1 were asked to complete round 2, and 58 responses were received. Consensus was reached for 18 of 25 questions (72%) in round 1 and 4 of 7 questions (57%) in round 2. Existing Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology system terminology achieved consensus of 84% (58 of 69 experts) in round 1 and 97% (56 of 58 experts) in round 2. Experts agreed on the need for further refinement of the definition of zones of injury (55 of 69 [80%]), as the zone affected can have a substantial effect on visual and functional outcomes. There was consensus that the mechanism of injury (52 of 69 [75%]) and status of the lacrimal canaliculi (54 of 69 [78%]), nasolacrimal ducts (48 of 69 [69%]), lens (46 of 58 [80%]), retina (42 of 58 [73%]), and central and paracentral cornea (47 of 58 [81%]) be included in the revised terminology. Conclusions and Relevance There was consensus (defined as at least 67% expert agreement) on continued use of the existing Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology system definitions and that additional terms are required to update the current ocular trauma terminology.

中文翻译：

---

全球和附件创伤术语调查。

重要性 眼外伤术语应定期更新，以便能够在临床和研究环境中全面捕获和监测眼外伤。目的 更新眼球和附件创伤的术语。设计、设置和参与者 2021 年 1 月 1 日至 7 月 31 日期间进行了两轮改良德尔菲调查，专家小组成员包括 69 名眼科医生，这些眼科医生是通过眼科（眼球和附件创伤）协会的会员身份确定的。共识被定义为至少 67% 的专家同意。指导委员会通过有针对性的文献综述确定当前术语中的差距后提出了问题。第一轮寻求就现有和新提出的术语达成共识，第二轮侧重于第一轮中未解决的问题。专家包括眼科医生，他们在整个职业生涯中平均处理过 52 例眼球或附件创伤病例和/或总共发表了 5 或更多与全球或附件创伤相关的同行评审文章。主要成果和措施 关于眼部和附件术语的专家共识。结果共有69名专家参与并完成了第一轮调查。完成第一轮的所有 69 名参与者都被要求完成第二轮，共收到 58 份回复。第一轮 25 个问题中的 18 个问题 (72%) 达成了共识，第二轮 7 个问题中的 4 个问题 (57%) 达成了共识。现有伯明翰眼外伤术语系统术语在第一轮和第二轮中达成了 84% 的共识（69 名专家中的 58 名专家）第 2 轮中的 97%（58 名专家中的 56 名）。专家们一致认为需要进一步细化损伤区域的定义（69 名专家中的 55 名[80%]），因为受影响的区域会对视觉和功能产生重大影响结果。就损伤机制（69 例中的 52 例 [75%]）和泪小管（69 例中的 54 例 [78%]）、鼻泪管（69 例中的 48 例 [69%]）、晶状体（58 例中的 46 例）的状态达成共识。 [80%]）、视网膜（58 个中的 42 个 [73%]）以及中央和旁中央角膜（58 个中的 47 个 [81%]）被纳入修订后的术语中。结论和相关性 对于继续使用现有的伯明翰眼外伤术语系统定义达成了共识（定义为至少 67% 的专家同意），并且需要额外的术语来更新当前的眼外伤术语。