4.6 Article

Endogenous endophthalmitis: 10-year experience at a tertiary referral centre

Journal

EYE
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 66-72

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2010.145

Keywords

endogenous endophthalmitis; drug abuse; microbiology; visual acuity; risk factors

Categories

Funding

  1. Victorian Government

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Endogenous endophthalmitis (EE) is a sight-threatening emergency and the aetiology is often multifactorial. Delayed diagnosis may exacerbate the poor visual prognosis. We describe the management and visual outcomes of EE presenting to a tertiary referral centre. Patients and methods A prospective consecutive case series of 64 patients presenting with presumed EE from 1997 to 2007 to the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital were included. All data were collected in a standardized manner. Outcome measures included: visual acuity, microbial profiles, and vitrectomy rate. Results In total, 64 cases of EE were identified over the study period with a mean age of 57.5 years, and 53.5% were male. Presenting acuities ranged from Snellen 6/6 to no perception of light (NPL). Identifiable risk factors were present in 78.1%, with the majority related to intravenous drug abuse. A 64.1% culture positivity rate was recorded. A vitrectomy rate of 57, 56, and 21% was recorded in documented bacterial, fungal, and no growth cases, respectively. Final Snellen acuities ranged from 6/6 to NPL. A total of 5 out of 64 eyes were enucleated, of which 3 identified Klebsiella species. Better visual outcome was documented in fungal cases. Conclusion EE is a serious ocular condition and has a varied aetiology. Visual outcomes are often poor, irrespective of the method of management. Fungal aetiology often confers a better prognosis, and vitrectomy is advocated for bacterial proven cases. Eye (2011) 25, 66-72; doi: 10.1038/eye.2010.145; published online 22 October 2010

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