TY - JOUR T1 - [Impact of the Lubrizol Rouen plant fire of September 26, 2019 on ophthalmic emergency room visits]. AU - Huard,J, AU - Gueudry,J, AU - Leroy,J-P, AU - Joly,L-M, AU - Muraine,M, Y1 - 2021/07/14/ PY - 2020/06/29/received PY - 2020/07/02/accepted PY - 2021/7/19/pubmed PY - 2021/9/30/medline PY - 2021/7/18/entrez KW - Adverse effects Emergencies KW - Effets adverses Urgences KW - Epidemiology Fire KW - Pollution KW - adverse effects Humans Rouen KW - effets adverses Humans Rouen KW - epidemiologie KW - epidemiology KW - épidémiologie Incendie SP - 1121 EP - 1128 JF - Journal francais d'ophtalmologie JO - J Fr Ophtalmol VL - 44 IS - 8 N2 - INTRODUCTION: A fire at the Lubrizol chemical factory in Rouen on September 26, 2019 generated a huge column of smoke directed northeast toward the city. As the eye might be particularly affected by the smoke and other toxic emissions from the fire, we assessed the impact of this industrial and ecological disaster on irritative eye surface disease in the week following the accident. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected the medical data of the patients who presented to the Ophthalmology Emergency Department (OED) of Rouen University Hospital (the only OED open during the days following the accident) during the week following the fire (W1). We compared these data with those of patients who presented during the week before the fire (W-1). We also collected data on patients presenting to the ED in general during W-1 and W1, including the number of visits directly related to the fire. RESULTS: 361 patients presented to the OED during W1 following the fire, compared with 384 in W-1. Of these patients, 83 (23%) had ocular surface disease in W1, versus 76 (20%) in W-1. Conjunctivitis was found in 54 patients in W1 (39 viral, 9 allergic, 6 undetermined) versus 44 in W-1 (27 viral, 12 allergic, 5 undetermined). A dry irritative syndrome was present in 29 patients in W1 versus 32 in W-1. Only 4 patients directly attributed their symptoms to the fire: 2 viral conjunctivitis, 1 allergic conjunctivitis and 1 worried patient (at D2, D5, D7 and D7 following the fire respectively). DISCUSSION: The number of emergency eye consultations did not change in the week following the Lubrizol factory fire (except for a decrease the day of the accident, related to the lock-down). There was a higher number of consultations in W1 for conjunctivitis, mostly viral in appearance and probably not directly related to the fire. The number of consultations for dry irritative syndrome was comparable between the two periods. Despite major media coverage of the event at the national level and a very high level of concern among the population, the fire does not seem to have had an effect on OED activity at Rouen University Hospital, nor on general ED visits. The stay-at-home order on the first day may have had a protective effect, avoiding direct exposure to smoke. The long-term consequences of the soot deposits on the ground as the smoke cloud passed over remain undetermined and are under surveillance. A review of the literature on the ocular consequences of industrial accidents is presented. CONCLUSION: The Ophthalmology Emergency Department did not record increased activity in the week following the Lubrizol Rouen fire, and ocular surface disease did not give rise to more consultations than the week before the fire. This suggests that there was no or minimal immediate ocular toxicity of the smoke from the fire. SN - 1773-0597 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/34274163/ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -