Smiddy William E, Smiddy Robert J, Ba'Arath Basel, Flynn Harry W, Murray Timothy G, Feuer William J, Miller Darlene
Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA.
Retina. 2005 Sep;25(6):751-8. doi: 10.1097/00006982-200509000-00011.
To determine if the treatment outcomes for endophthalmitis are influenced by subconjunctival antibiotics.
A retrospective, nonrandomized consecutive series of patients with clinically diagnosed bacterial endophthalmitis confirmed with positive cultures who presented between December 1, 1995, and February 28, 2002, was studied. Patients with cataract surgery, glaucoma filtering blebs, or trauma who presented with visual acuity of hand motions or better were included. All patients received intravitreal and topical antibiotics. Management by pars plana vitrectomy or vitreous tap and use or nonuse of subconjunctival antibiotics were at the discretion of the treating physician.
There were 59 patients identified; 54 met the follow-up criteria. These patients were divided into two groups based on whether subconjunctival antibiotics were used (group ABX; n = 21) or not used (group noABX; n = 33). The median pretreatment visual acuity was hand motions in both groups. The median age in both groups was 74 years. Etiology, duration of symptoms, vitreous culture organisms, percentage of cases with wound complications such as leaks or vitreous incarceration, and intraocular lens type were similar in the two study groups. Intravitreal and topical antibiotics and corticosteroids used were not significantly different in the two groups, except that topical ceftazidime was used less frequently in group ABX than in group noABX (43% vs. 82%, respectively; P = 0.007). The median follow-up was 13 months in both groups (range: 3-87 months for group ABX and 3-63 months for group noABX). Final visual acuity in groups ABX and noABX was at least 20/50 (33% vs. 39%, respectively), 20/60 to 5/200 (29% vs. 39%, respectively), 4/200 to better than hand motions (0 vs. 3%, respectively), or hand motions or worse (38% vs. 18%, respectively). These differences were not significant (P = 0.37). Reinjection rates (14% vs. 15%, respectively) were also similar in groups ABX and noABX. The additional procedures rate was significantly higher in group ABX than in group noABX (P = 0.024), with cumulative rates of 33% and 3%, respectively, at the 12-month follow-up.
These data suggest that subconjunctival antibiotics may not be necessary to treat infectious endophthalmitis managed with otherwise standard tap and injection techniques and topical antibiotics.
确定结膜下注射抗生素是否会影响眼内炎的治疗效果。
对1995年12月1日至2002年2月28日期间临床诊断为细菌性眼内炎且培养结果呈阳性的患者进行回顾性、非随机连续系列研究。纳入白内障手术、青光眼滤过泡或外伤后视力为手动及以上的患者。所有患者均接受玻璃体内及局部抗生素治疗。是否行玻璃体切除术或玻璃体穿刺以及是否使用结膜下抗生素由治疗医师自行决定。
共确定59例患者;54例符合随访标准。根据是否使用结膜下抗生素将这些患者分为两组(ABX组;n = 21)和未使用组(noABX组;n = 33)。两组治疗前的中位视力均为手动。两组的中位年龄均为74岁。两个研究组在病因、症状持续时间、玻璃体培养微生物、伤口并发症(如渗漏或玻璃体嵌顿)病例百分比以及人工晶状体类型方面相似。两组使用的玻璃体内及局部抗生素和皮质类固醇无显著差异,只是ABX组使用头孢他啶局部用药的频率低于noABX组(分别为43%和82%;P = 0.007)。两组的中位随访时间均为13个月(范围:ABX组为3 - 87个月,noABX组为3 - 63个月)。ABX组和noABX组的最终视力至少为20/50(分别为33%和39%)、20/60至5/200(分别为29%和39%)、4/200至优于手动(分别为0和3%)或手动及以下(分别为38%和18%)。这些差异无统计学意义(P = 0.37)。ABX组和noABX组的再次注射率(分别为14%和15%)也相似。ABX组的额外手术率显著高于noABX组(P = 0.024),在12个月随访时累积率分别为33%和3%。
这些数据表明,对于采用标准穿刺和注射技术及局部抗生素治疗的感染性眼内炎,结膜下注射抗生素可能并非必要。