Han D P, Wisniewski S R, Kelsey S F, Doft B H, Barza M, Pavan P R
Department of Ophthalmology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA.
Retina. 1999;19(2):98-102. doi: 10.1097/00006982-199902000-00002.
To compare the microbiologic yields and complication rates associated with vitreous needle tap and vitreous biopsy in the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study (EVS).
Of 420 EVS patients with postoperative endophthalmitis, 201 received immediate vitreous tap or biopsy (without pars plana vitrectomy) by random assignment and 193 completed 9-12 months of follow-up. Vitreous specimens were obtained by biopsy with a 20-gauge vitrectomy cutting instrument or by needle tap with a 22-27-gauge needle. If resistance to aspiration by needle tap was noted, a vitreous biopsy was performed.
Of 201 patients undergoing tap or biopsy, 70 (35%) had needle tap, 127 (63%) had mechanized biopsy, and 4 (2%) had initial needle tap that was aborted to mechanized biopsy ("abort" eyes). Intraoperative hyphema occurred in 2 tap eyes (3%), 3 biopsy eyes (2%), and 0 (0%) abort eyes. Postoperative retinal detachment developed in 8 (11%) tap eyes, 10 (8%) biopsy eyes, and 0 (0%) abort eyes (not significant). Respective rates of culture and gram stain positivity were 69% and 42% in tap eyes and 66% and 41% in biopsy eyes (not significant). The rate of severe visual loss (final acuity <5/200) was significantly higher in tap eyes (16 eyes, 24%) compared with biopsy eyes (13 eyes, 11%) and abort eyes (0 eyes, 0%; P = 0.043). The difference was largely explained by the greater proportion of virulent organisms in the tap eyes compared with biopsy eyes. When visual acuity outcome was defined by other thresholds (20/40 and 20/100), the difference was not significant.
This study showed no significant differences between mechanized vitreous biopsy and needle tap with respect to microbiologic yield, operative complications, short-term (9-12 months) retinal detachment risk, or visual outcome. Choice of vitreous sampling procedure must depend on the clinical judgment of the surgeon.
在眼内炎玻璃体切除研究(EVS)中比较玻璃体穿刺抽吸术和玻璃体活检术的微生物培养阳性率及并发症发生率。
420例EVS术后眼内炎患者中,201例通过随机分组接受了即刻玻璃体穿刺抽吸或活检(未行玻璃体切割术),193例完成了9至12个月的随访。玻璃体标本通过使用20号玻璃体切割器械进行活检或用22至27号针头进行穿刺抽吸获得。如果穿刺抽吸时感到有阻力,则进行玻璃体活检。
在201例接受穿刺抽吸或活检的患者中,70例(35%)进行了穿刺抽吸,127例(63%)进行了机械活检,4例(2%)最初进行穿刺抽吸但中途改为机械活检(“中途改变”眼)。术中前房出血在2例穿刺抽吸眼中发生(3%),3例活检眼中发生(2%),0例(0%)“中途改变”眼中发生。术后视网膜脱离在8例(11%)穿刺抽吸眼中发生,10例(8%)活检眼中发生,0例(0%)“中途改变”眼中发生(无显著差异)。穿刺抽吸眼的培养阳性率和革兰氏染色阳性率分别为69%和42%,活检眼分别为66%和41%(无显著差异)。严重视力丧失(最终视力<5/200)的发生率在穿刺抽吸眼中(16例,24%)显著高于活检眼(13例,11%)和“中途改变”眼(0例,0%;P = 0.043)。与活检眼相比,穿刺抽吸眼中毒性较强的微生物比例更高,这在很大程度上解释了这种差异。当以其他视力阈值(20/40和20/100)定义视力结果时,差异不显著。
本研究表明,在微生物培养阳性率、手术并发症、短期(9至12个月)视网膜脱离风险或视力结果方面,机械玻璃体活检和穿刺抽吸术之间无显著差异。玻璃体采样方法的选择必须取决于外科医生的临床判断。