| Literature DB >> 34337691 |
Nawat Watanachai1, Janejit Choovuthayakorn2, Susama Chokesuwattanaskul1, Chaipot Photcharapongsakul1, Praelada Wongsirimeteekul1, Phichayut Phinyo3,4,5, Voraporn Chaikitmongkol1, Paradee Kunavisarut1, Pongsant Supreeyathitikul1, Direk Patikulsila1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To describe the epidemiology, characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes of post-traumatic endophthalmitis. MAIN BODY: Medical records of consecutive open globe injury patients admitted and primarily treated between January 2006 and December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were defined as having or not having associated endophthalmitis. Data of demographics, injury characteristics, clinical presentations, and visual outcomes were collected. The potential risks and significant factors for visual outcomes of post-traumatic endophthalmitis were determined. There were 591 patients included in this study. Among these, 118 patients were clinically diagnosed as having accompanied endophthalmitis. Higher proportions of intraocular foreign body (IOFB) (55.1% vs. 27.3%) and injury related to high-velocity objects (55.9% vs. 32.6%) were noted in patients with endophthalmitis compared to patients without endophthalmitis. Anterior wound location (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 3.7; P = 0.020), presence of IOFB (OR, 1.9; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.0; P = 0.005), and delayed presentation of > 24 h (OR, 3.9; 95% CI 2.3 to 6.4; P < 0.001) were significant risk factors for associated endophthalmitis. Final visual acuity (VA) of the overall population improved significantly from 2.4 (0.6) logMAR to 1.4 (0.1) logMAR, P < 0.001, however, patients in the endophthalmitis group achieved a worse final VA than the non-endophthalmitis group (66.1% vs. 43.5%, P < 0.001).Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34337691 PMCID: PMC8326234 DOI: 10.1186/s12348-021-00254-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect ISSN: 1869-5760
Demographics and injury characteristics of open globe injury patients divided into endophthalmitis and non-endophthalmitis groups
| Characteristics | Total ( | Endophthalmitis group ( | Non-endophthalmitis group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age (SD), year | 39.0 (18.2) | 39.2 (17.2) | 38.9 (18.4) | 0.655 |
| Gender (male/female) | 524/67 | 106/12 | 418/55 | 0.747 |
| Laterality (right/left) | 298/293 | 54/64 | 244/229 | 0.303 |
| Age group (year), n (%) | 0.246 | |||
| 0 to 20 | 105 (17.8) | 18 (15.3) | 87 (18.4) | |
| > 20 to 40 | 200 (33.8) | 39 (33.1) | 161 (34.0) | |
| > 40 to 60 | 225 (38.1) | 53 (44.9) | 172 (36.4) | |
| > 60 | 61 (10.3) | 8 (6.8) | 53 (11.2) | |
| Mechanism of injury, n (%) | < 0.001 | |||
| IOFB | 194 (32.8) | 65 (55.1) | 129 (27.3) | |
| Penetration/perforation | 287 (18.6) | 49 (41.5) | 238 (50.3) | |
| Rupture | 110 (48.6) | 4 (3.4) | 106 (22.4) | |
| Injury site, n (%) | < 0.001 | |||
| Workplace based | 375 (63.5) | 96 (81.4) | 279 (59.0) | |
| Outdoor based | 181 (30.6) | 18 (15.3) | 163 (34.5) | |
| Home and indoor based | 35 (5.9) | 4 (3.4) | 31 (6.6) | |
| Object causing injury, n (%) | < 0.001 | |||
| Mowing related projectile objects | 147 (24.9) | 53 (44.9) | 94 (19.9) | |
| Chiseling/hammering related projectile objects | 73 (12.4) | 13 (11.0) | 60 (12.7) | |
| Other metallic objects | 59 (10.0) | 16 (13.6) | 43 (9.1) | |
| Sticky wood/wooden object | 90 (15.2) | 15 (12.7) | 75 (15.9) | |
| Explosive object | 54 (9.1) | 7 (5.9) | 47 (9.9) | |
| Hit by other blunt objects | 78 (13.2) | 5 (4.2) | 73 (15.4) | |
| Needle/knife | 20 (3.4) | 4 (3.4) | 16 (3.4) | |
| Glass | 55 (9.3) | 2 (1.7) | 53 (11.2) | |
| Unknown | 15 (2.5) | 3 (2.5) | 12 (2.5) | |
| Address of injury, n (%) | < 0.001 | |||
| Rural | 359 (60.7) | 90 (76.3) | 269 (56.9) | |
| Urban | 232 (39.7) | 28 (23.7) | 204 (43.1) | |
| Soil/vegetation contaminated injury, n (%) | 237 (40.1) | 68 (57.6) | 169 (37.5) | < 0.001 |
IOFB intraocular foreign body, SD standard deviation
Clinical presentations of open globe injury patients by endophthalmitis groups
| Clinical characteristics | Total ( | Endophthalmitis group ( | Non-endophthalmitis group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wound location, n (%) | < 0.001 | |||
| Zone I | 281 (47.5) | 80 (67.8) | 201 (42.5) | |
| Zone II | 166 (28.1) | 21 (17.8) | 145 (30.7) | |
| Zone III | 144 (24.4) | 17 (14.4) | 127 (26.8) | |
| Lens capsule rupture, n (%) | 104 (17.6) | 24 (20.3) | 80 (16.9) | 0.422 |
| Vitreous prolapsed, n (%) | 138 (23.4) | 10 (8.5) | 128 (27.1) | < 0.001 |
| Uveal tissue prolapsed, n (%) | 261 (44.2) | 34 (28.8) | 227 (48.0) | < 0.001 |
| Retinal detachment, n (%) | 133 (22.5) | 26 (22.0) | 107 (22.6) | 0.904 |
| Choroidal detachment, n (%) | 72 (12.2) | 8 (6.8) | 64 (13.5) | 0.063 |
| RAPD, n (%) | 184 (31.1) | 36 (30.5) | 148 (31.3) | 0.912 |
| Presenting to hospital > 24 h, n (%) | 284 (48.1) | 93 (78.8) | 191 (40.4) | < 0.001 |
| Median duration of admission (IQR), day | 9 (6 to 12) | 10 (7 to 14) | 8 (6 to 12) | < 0.001 |
| Mean final (SD) VA, logMARa | 1.4 (1.1) | 1.9 (1.0) | 1.3 (1.1) | < 0.001 |
| Final VA worsen than 20/400, n (%)a | 282 (48.0) | 78 (66.1) | 204 (43.5) | < 0.001 |
RAPD relative afferent pupillary defect, IQR interquartile range, VA visual acuity, SD standard deviation, logMAR logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution, FVA VA at final follow-up visit
aVA at final follow-up could not be determined in 4 patients of non-endophthalmitis group
Multivariable regression for risk of endophthalmitis development following open globe injury by full analysis and reduced model analysis
| Variables | Full analysis | Backward LR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio | 95% CI | Odds ratio | 95% CI | |||
| Wound location | ||||||
| Zone III | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Zone II | 1.3 | 0.6–2.6 | 0.521 | 1.1 | 0.6–2.3 | 0.701 |
| Zone I | 1.9 | 1.1–3.5 | 0.045 | 2.0 | 1.1–3.7 | 0.020 |
| Vitreous prolapse | 1.8 | 0.9–3.9 | 0.124 | NA | ||
| Uveal tissue prolapse | 0.8 | 0.5–1.4 | 0.510 | NA | ||
| Presence of IOFB | 1.6 | 0.9–2.6 | 0.078 | 1.9 | 1.2–3.0 | 0.005 |
| Self-sealed wound | 1.6 | 0.9–2.7 | 0.107 | NA | ||
| Contaminated wound | 1.3 | 0.8–2.1 | 0.248 | NA | ||
| Rural address | 0.9 | 0.6–1.7 | 0.984 | NA | ||
| Time to hospital > 24 h | 3.3 | 1.8–5.9 | < 0.001 | 3.9 | 2.3–6.4 | < 0.001 |
CI confidence interval, IOFB intraocular foreign body
Probability of endophthalmitis development following open globe injury by associated risk characteristics
| Probability of endophthalmitis (%) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 factors | 3 factors | ||||||||
| Wound location | |||||||||
| Zone 3 | |||||||||
| Zone 2 | |||||||||
| Zone 1 | |||||||||
| Presence of IOFB | |||||||||
| Time to hospital > 24 h | |||||||||
| 9.5 | 10.8 | 17.6 | 17.5 | 19.6 | 30.1 | 28.9 | 31.8 | 45.2 | |
Receiver operating curve (ROC) = 0.79
IOFB intraocular foreign body
Characteristics of endophthalmitis patients by culture results (N = 118)
| Characteristics | Endophthalmitis ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive culture ( | Negative culture ( | ||
| Presence of IOFB, n (%) | 15 (60.0) | 50 (53.8) | 0.741 |
| Lens capsule rupture, n (%) | 8 (32.0) | 16 (17.2) | 0.176 |
| Presenting to hospital > 24 h, n (%) | 17 (68.0) | 76 (81.7) | 0.224 |
| Self-sealing wound, n (%) | 6 (24.0) | 46 (49.5) | 0.040 |
| Mean initial (SD) VA, logMAR | 2.4 (0.7) | 2.3 (0.7) | 0.382 |
| Receiving intravenous antibiotics prior presentation, n (%) | 19 (76.0) | 77 (82.8) | 0.627 |
| Final VA worsen than 20/400, n (%)a | 22 (88.0) | 56 (60.2) | 0.018 |
| Enucleation/evisceration, n (%) | 10 (40.0) | 14 (15.1) | 0.013 |
VA visual acuity, SD standard deviation, logMAR logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution, IOFB intraocular foreign body
aVA at final follow-up could not be determined in 4 patients of non-endophthalmitis group
Microbiological distribution of culture-positive post-traumatic endophthalmitis patients (N = 25)
| Microbiological proven | Number |
|---|---|
| Gram positive ( | |
| | 7 |
| | 4 |
| | 3 |
| | 2 |
| | 1 |
| | 1 |
| Gram negative ( | |
| | 1 |
| | 1 |
| | 1 |
| Mixed organism ( | |
| | 1 |
| | 1 |
| | 1 |
| Fungus ( | |
| | 1 |
Presentations and outcomes of open globe injury divided into patients with primary self-sealing wound and patients requiring primary wound repair
| Characteristics | Open globe injury ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-sealing wound ( | Non-self-sealing wound ( | ||
| Workplace based injury, n (%) | 116 (84.7) | 259 (57.0) | < 0.001 |
| Projectile-related objects (mowing and chiseling), n (%) | 76 (55.5) | 144 (31.8) | < 0.001 |
| Zone I injury, n (%) | 92 (67.2) | 189 (41.6) | < 0.001 |
| Presence of IOFB, n (%) | 100 (73.0) | 94 (20.7) | < 0.001 |
| Presence of endophthalmitis, n (%) | 52 (38.0) | 66 (14.5) | < 0.001 |
| Lens capsule rupture, n (%) | 17 (12.4) | 87 (19.2) | 0.091 |
| Presenting to hospital > 24 h, n (%) | 114 (83.2) | 170 (37.4) | < 0.001 |
| Mean initial (SD) VA, logMAR | 1.8 (0.9) | 2.4 (0.6) | < 0.001 |
| Final VA worsen than 20/400, n (%)a | 56 (40.9) | 226 (50.2) | 0.088 |
VA visual acuity, SD standard deviation, logMAR logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution, IOFB intraocular foreign body
aVA at final follow-up could not be determined in 4 patients of non-endophthalmitis group