PURPOSE: To compare the microbiologic yields and complication rates associated with vitreous needle tap and vitreous biopsy in the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study (EVS). METHODS: Of 420 EVS patients with postoperative endophthalmitis, 201 receivedimmediate 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the microbiologic yields and complication rates associated with vitreous needle tap and vitreous biopsy in the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study (EVS). METHODS: Of 420 EVSpatients 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Authors: Marco Coassin; Lorenzo Braconi; Giancarlo Sborgia; Giuseppe Mangano; Valentina Mastrofilippo; Antonio Di Zazzo; Luigi Fontana; Luca Cimino Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Michelle C Callegan; Michael Engelbert; David W Parke; Bradley D Jett; Michael S Gilmore Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Jessica M Skeie; Eric N Brown; Harryl D Martinez; Stephen R Russell; Emily S Birkholz; James C Folk; H Culver Boldt; Karen M Gehrs; Edwin M Stone; Michael E Wright; Vinit B Mahajan Journal: Retina Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Mónica Asencio-Duran; José Luis Vallejo-Garcia; Natalia Pastora-Salvador; Agustín Fonseca-Sandomingo; Mario R Romano Journal: Mediators Inflamm Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 4.711
Authors: David Rp Almeida; Eric K Chin; Shaival S Shah; Benjamin Bakall; Karen M Gehrs; H Culver Boldt; Stephen R Russell; James C Folk; Vinit B Mahajan Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2016-01-22