4.3 Article

Residual lens cortex material: Potential risk factor for endophthalmitis after phacoemulsification cataract surgery

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 250-257

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.07.038

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation, China [81000371]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To evaluate the bacterial growth potential of residual lens cortex after phacoemulsification with the development of endophthalmitis. SETTING: University medical center. DESIGN: Experimental study. METHOD: Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis were dispensed into aqueous humor or serial dilutions of lens cortex that were obtained from cataract patients during phacoemulsification. After a 24-hour incubation, the colony-forming unit (CFU) was quantified. Eighty rabbits had phacoemulsification. Complete lens cortex removal was performed in 40 rabbits, while a quarter of lens cortex was retained in 40 rabbits. Staphylococcus aureus, with an inoculum size of 32 CFU, 56.3 CFU, and 108.6 CFU, was injected intracamerally at the conclusion of surgery and the production of endophthalmitis was measured 72 h later. The aqueous and vitreous humor samples were collected for microbiological diagnosis. RESULTS: The increase in bacterial growth of S aureus and S epidermidis was statistically significantly greater in each dilution of lens cortex than in aqueous humor (P<.001, Student t test). With inoculum of 32.0 CFU or 56.3 CFU of S aureus, there was a statistically higher incidence of bacterial culture-proven endophthalmitis in the residual lens cortex eye group than in the normal aphakic eye group (P<.05, Fisher exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Lens cortex was associated with a significant increase in bacterial growth compared with aqueous humor. Therefore, eyes with residual lens cortex seem more prone to develop endophthalmitis if anterior chamber bacterial contamination occurs during phacoemulsification.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据