4.6 Article

Incidence, microbiology, and outcomes of endophthalmitis after 111,876 pars plana vitrectomies at a single, tertiary eye care hospital

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191173

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To describe the incidence, risk factors, clinical presentation, causative organisms, and outcomes in patients with endophthalmitis following pars plana vitrectomy (20G and minimally invasive vitrectomy surgery (MIVS). Methods Of 111,876 vitrectomies (70,585 20-G 41,291 MIVS) performed, 45 cases developed acute onset, postoperative endophthalmitis. Results The rate of culture positive and culture negative endophthalmitis was 0.021% (2.1/10,000 surgeries) and 0.019% (1.9/10,000 surgeries) overall, 0.031% (3.1/10,000 surgeries) and 0.025% (2.5/10,000 surgeries) in 20G, and 0.005% (0.5/10,000 surgeries) and 0.007% (0.7/10,000 surgeries) in the MIVS group respectively. Potential predisposing factors were as follows: diabetes, 46.7%; vitrectomy for vascular retinopathies, 44.4%; and vitrectomy combined with anterior segment surgeries, 35.5%. The culture proven rates were 53.3% overall, 55.0% for 20G and 40.0% for MIVS. The most common organism was Pseudomonas aeruginosa for 20G. Klebsiella and Staphylococcus aureus were isolated in the two culture positive cases in MIVS group. The follow-up period for the patients with endophthalmitis was 586.14 +/- 825.15 days. Seven were lost to follow up beyond one week. Of the remaining 38, 13 (34.2%) cases had a favorable visual outcome (i.e., best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA] > 5/200) and 24 (63.2%) had unfavorable visual outcome (BCVA < 5/200). Group with culture test results negative had significantly better outcomes (P < 0.05) as compared to those with positive. Conclusions MIVS does not increase the risk of endophthalmitis. Outcomes are poor despite appropriate treatment, particularly in cases with culture results positive.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available