Department of Ophthalmology, Ourense University Hospital, Ourense, Spain.
Ophthalmology. 2013 Nov;120(11):2286-91. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.04.010. Epub 2013 Jun 12.
Endophthalmitis is a rare but severe complication of vitrectomy.
Post-surgical endophthalmitis is suspected to be more frequent after microincisional (23- and 25-gauge) compared with standard (20-gauge) vitrectomy.
We conducted a systematic review of studies that compared microincisional and standard vitrectomy by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE up to November 2012. We used the Bayesian meta-analysis method to compute the odds ratio (OR) of endophthalmitis. We conducted subgroup analyses to compare the effect of different incision types and use of perioperative antibiotics.
We identified 3 small randomized and 18 nonrandomized studies that reported 68 cases of endophthalmitis in 148 643 participants. The overall OR of endophthalmitis for microincisional versus standard vitrectomy was 2.3 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.8-5.8). We found an increased risk of endophthalmitis using a microincisional straight approach compared with standard vitrectomy (OR, 15.1; 95% CrI, 2.01-179), but not for a beveled approach (OR, 0.82; 95% CrI, 0.23-2.28). The OR of studies that reported on mixed microincision was between these 2 values (OR, 4.4; 95% CrI, 1.32-14.3). We estimated that the overall rate of endophthalmitis with 20-gauge vitrectomy was 3 cases in 10 000 procedures, and the probability that a beveled microincision increases the rate of endophthalmitis to more than 6 or 9 events was small (no more than 5% or 1%, respectively).
We did not find an increased risk of endophthalmitis for microincisional vitrectomy compared with standard vitrectomy. The beveled approach seems to be safer than a straight approach, supporting the current recommendation of its adoption in microincisional vitrectomy. However, these findings must be interpreted cautiously because of the small number of endophthalmitis events reported from included studies.
眼内炎是玻璃体切除术罕见但严重的并发症。
与标准(20 规)玻璃体切除术相比,微切口(23 规和 25 规)手术后眼内炎的发生率似乎更高。
我们通过搜索 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 数据库,对截至 2012 年 11 月比较微切口和标准玻璃体切除术的研究进行了系统评价。我们使用贝叶斯荟萃分析方法计算了眼内炎的比值比(OR)。我们进行了亚组分析,以比较不同切口类型和围手术期使用抗生素的效果。
我们确定了 3 项小型随机研究和 18 项非随机研究,这些研究报告了在 148643 名参与者中 68 例眼内炎。微切口与标准玻璃体切除术相比,眼内炎的总体 OR 为 2.3(95%可信区间[CrI],0.8-5.8)。我们发现,与标准玻璃体切除术相比,使用微切口直入式方法会增加眼内炎的风险(OR,15.1;95% CrI,2.01-179),但使用斜切口方法则不会(OR,0.82;95% CrI,0.23-2.28)。报告混合微切口的研究的 OR 值介于这两个值之间(OR,4.4;95% CrI,1.32-14.3)。我们估计,20 规玻璃体切除术的眼内炎总发生率为每 10000 例 3 例,斜切口微切口增加眼内炎发生率超过 6 或 9 例的概率较小(分别不超过 5%或 1%)。
我们没有发现微切口玻璃体切除术与标准玻璃体切除术相比,眼内炎的风险增加。斜切口似乎比直切口更安全,支持当前采用微切口玻璃体切除术的建议。然而,由于纳入研究报告的眼内炎事件数量较少,因此必须谨慎解释这些发现。