4.3 Article

Vitrectomy for Endogenous Fungal Endophthalmitis

期刊

OCULAR IMMUNOLOGY AND INFLAMMATION
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 148-152

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/09273940802689396

关键词

Causative organism; endogenous; fungal endophthalmitis; predisposing risk factors; vitrectomy

资金

  1. Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Project [S30205]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the predisposing risk factors and treatment outcomes of endogenous fungal endophthalmitis (EFE). Methods: Records of 25 patients (29 eyes), diagnosed with EFE and treated at Shanghai Eye, Ear, Nose Throat Hospital from January 2002 to December 2006, were retrospectively reviewed. Four patients had bilateral disease. Final visual acuity and recurrence of EFE were evaluated. Results: Of these 25 patients diagnosed with EFE, 20 patients (22 eyes) were treated by pars plana vitrectomy. Of the remaining 5 patients (7 eyes), 3 cases (4 eyes) were cured by antifungal drugs through systemic treatment and intravitreal injection, but another 2 cases (3 eyes) were only given intravitreal injection because of severe general conditions. Of the 22 eyes that underwent pars plana vitrectomy, 16 (73%) eyes gained visual acuity of counting fingers or better. Recurrent EFE was happened in 2 eyes. Vitrectomy was repeated in 1 eye, another was subsequently enucleated due to phthisis. Vitreous culture-proven or smear-proven EFE occurred in 27 or 2 eyes, respectively. Candida albicans occurred in 17 of 29 eyes (59%), and other causative organisms were yeast fungus (3 eyes), Aspergillus niger (3 eyes), Actinomyces (2 eyes),Aspergillus flavus (1 eye), and Fusarium (1 eye). Conclusion: Candida albicans were the most common causative organisms in EFE. The most common predisposing risk factors include recent major operation and intravenous administration in rural settings. Most patients with EFE will gain useful vision (counting fingers) after pars plana vitrectomy.

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