Indian Journal of Ophthalmology (Mar 2005)
Relationship between Clinical Presentation and Visual Outcome in Postoperative and Posttraumatic Endophthalmitis in South Central India
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine risk factors for poor visual outcome in postoperative and posttraumatic endophthalmitis in a large referral center in south central India. METHODS: In this prospective observational series the authors examined 388 patients of postoperative (n= 206) and posttraumatic (n= 182) endophthalmitis at the L V Prasad Eye Institute in Hyderabad, India between 1991 and 1997.The analysis was confined to 236 patients-128 (62.1%) postoperative and 108 (59.3%) posttraumatic patients who were followed for a minimum period of 3 months. A detailed protocol was followed. Chi-square and logistic regression analysis were used to determine risk factors for visual outcome worse than 6/18 and worse than 6/120. RESULTS: Postoperative endophthalmitis: In univariate analysis the features associated with poor visual acuity (grouped as < 6/18 and < 6/120) included intracapsular cataract surgery, poor presenting visual acuity, presence of vitreous cells, inability to visualise the optic disc on indirect ophthalmoscopy, presence of vitreous membranes on ultrasonography, and a culture-positive vitreous biopsy. In the multivariate analysis, visual acuity of < light perception (LP) at presentation was associated with a 3-month postoperative visual acuity of < 6/18, with an odds ratio of 5.85 [ 1.25 - 27.42, 95% CI], and vitreous membranes seen on ultrasonography was associated with a final visual acuity of < 6/120, with an odds ratio of 2.47 [1.05 - 5.83, 95% CI]. Posttraumatic endophthalmitis: In univariate analysis the features associated with poor visual acuity (grouped as < 6/18 and < 6/120) included a retained intraocular foreign body (IOFB), trauma by needle (hypodermic or sewing), poor presenting visual acuity, inability to visualise the optic disc on indirect ophthalmoscopy, presence of vitreous membranes on ultrasonography, and a culture-positive vitreous biopsy. In multivariate analysis, IOFB was associated with a 3-month follow-up visual acuity of < 6/18, with an odds ratio of 5.90 [1.85 - 18.78, 95% CI], and trauma by a needle (hypodermic or sewing) and retained IOFB was associated with a final visual acuity of < 6/120, with an odds ratio of 4.47 [1.22 - 16.38, 95%CI] and 3.76 [1.36 - 10.37, 95% CI] respectively. CONCLUSION: This is the largest, single-centre, prospective study on risk factors for poor visual outcome in postoperative and posttraumatic endophthalmitis. The independent risk factor for 3-month follow-up visual acuity of < 6/18 was the presenting visual acuity of ≤LP in postoperative endophthalmitis and a retained IOFB in posttraumatic endophthalmitis. The independent risk factor for 3-month visual acuity of <6/120 was the presence of vitreous membranes on ultrasonography in postoperative endophthalmitis, and trauma by a needle (hypodermic/ sewing) and retained IOFB in posttrauamtic endophthalmitis.
