medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-3070 (Electronic)

2020, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Cub Oftal 2020; 33 (1)

Incidence of post-keratoplasty endophthalmitis in the population and possible risk factors

Moreno RME, Pérez PZ, Castillo PAC, Jareño OM, Ramos LM, Sibila GME

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 1-11
PDF size: 282.60 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Endophthalmitis is considered to be a severe form of intraocular inflammation of frequent infectious etiology.
Objective: Identify the incidence of post-keratoplasty endophthalmitis in the population and its possible risk factors.
Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at Ramón Pando Ferrer Cuban Institute of Ophthalmology in the period 2010-2015. The variables analyzed were age, sex, preoperative diagnosis, keratoplasty-related procedures, time of symptom onset, germs isolated in cultures and therapeutic alternatives implemented.
Results: A total 1 442 keratoplasties were performed; 0.41% of the cases (6 cases, 6 eyes) presented post-keratoplasty endophthalmitis. The most common reason for keratoplasty among these patients was pseudophakic bullous and phakic keratopathy. 33.3% had undergone combined keratoplasty-cataract surgery. Of the patients with post-keratoplasty endophthalmitis, 66.7% were aged over 60 years and male. Of the germs isolated, 50.0% were gram-positive. 100.0% of the patients received intravitreal antibiotics, and only 33.3% of them underwent early vitrectomy.
Conclusions: Close communication is indispensable between the eye bank, microbiologists and ophthalmologists to contribute to identification and elimination of risk factors, as well as early detection and appropriate therapeutic selection to facilitate prevention and obtain the best visual functional result in sufferers of this devastating complication.


REFERENCES

  1. Durand ML. Endophthalmitis. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013 [acceso:10/01/2020];19(3):227- 34. Disponible en: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1469-0691.12118/pdf

  2. Matsumoto M, Suzuma K, Miyamura N, Imamura N, Kitaoka T. Conjunctival swabs and corneoscleral rim cultures from corneal transplantation donors as possible early indicators for posttransplant endopthalmitis. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2011;55:321-6.

  3. Chen JY, Jones MN, Srinivasan S, Neal TJ, Armitage WJ, Kaye SB. Endophthalmitis after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2015 [acceso:10/01/2020];122(1):25-30. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25264028

  4. Vajpayee RB, Ray M, Gupta V, Taylor HR. Complicactions of penetranting keratoplasty. En: Vajpayee RB. Corneal Transplantation. New Delhi, India: Jaypee Brothers; 2002. p. 94- 113.

  5. Mabon M, Boisjoly H. Penetrating keratoplasty. En: Foster CF, Azar DT, Dohlman CH. Smolin and Thoft's. The Cornea. Philadelphia: Lippincott William & Wilkins; 2005. p. 1021- 42.

  6. Alharbi SS, Alrajhi A, Alkahtani E. Endophthalmitis following keratoplasty: incidence, microbial profile, visual and structural outcomes. Oc Immunol Inflamm. 2014;22(3):218-23.

  7. Bhat SS, Undrakonda V, Mukhopadhyay C, Parmar PV. Outbreak of Multidrug-resistant Acute postoperative. Endophthalmitis due to Enterobacter aerogenes. Oc Immunol Inflam. 2014;22(2): 121-6.

  8. Chaurasia S, Muralidhar R, Garg P, Gopinathan U. Donor corneal button-related endophthalmitis after penetrating keratoplasty. Clin Experim Ophthalmol. 2010;38:75-86.

  9. Escalona Leyva E, Pérez Parra Z, Castillo Pérez A, Jareño Ochoa M, López Hernández SM. Perfil epidemiológico del donante y del receptor en trasplante de córnea en el Instituto Cubano de Oftalmología "Ramón Pando Ferrer". Rev Cubana Oftalmol. 2014 [acceso:10/01/2020];27(4):558-68. Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864-21762014000400006

  10. Ozdemir ES, Burcu A, Akkaya ZY, Ornek F. The reasons for evisceration after penetrating keratoplasty between 1995 and 2015. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2017 [acceso:10/01/2020];80(3):168- 71. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004- 27492017000300168

  11. Moreno Ramírez ME, López Hernández S, Escalona Leyva E, Castillo Pérez A, Padilla González C, Vilches Lescaille D. Relación donante-receptor en la evolución de la queratoplastia. Rev Cubana Oftalmol [Internet]. 2008 [acceso: 20/12/2015];21(1). Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864-21762008000100010&lng=es

  12. Hernández López I, Arronte Alarcón MT, Cruz Izquierdo D, Cárdenas Díaz T, Miranda Hernández I, Guerra Almaguer M. Factores de riesgo de la endoftalmitis posquirúrgica en la cirugía de catarata. Rev Cubana Oftalmol. 2014 [acceso: 20/12/2015];27(3). Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?pid=S0864-1762014000300002&script=sci_arttext

  13. Hernández Silva JR, Padilla González CM, Ramos López M, Ríos Cazo R, Río Torres M. Resultados quirúrgicos de la facoemulsificación por técnicas de pre chop. Rev Cubana Oftalmol. 2004 [acceso: 20/12/2015]. Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864-21762004000200010

  14. Hassan SS, Wilhelmus KR. Eye-banking risk factors for fungal endophthalmitis compared with bacterial endophthalmitis after corneal transplantation. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139:685-90.

  15. Cameron JA, Antonios SR, Cotter JB. Endophthalmitis from contaminated donor corneas following penetrating keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991 [acceso: 20/12/2015];109:54-9. Disponible en: http://archopht.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=638846




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com