Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022
Clinical profile, visual outcome and root cause analysis of post-operative cluster endophthalmitis due to Burkholderia cepacia complex.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Deb Amit Kumar, Chavan Pratima, Kaliaperumal Subashini, Sistla Sujatha, Madigubba Haritha, Sarkar Sandip, Neena Aswathi
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To present varied clinical presentations, surveillance reports, and final visual outcomes of a rare outbreak of cluster endophthalmitis caused by gram-negative, opportunistic bacilli, Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc).
METHODS: Details of five patients who developed postoperative cluster endophthalmitis were collected. For each patient, an undiluted vitreous sample was collected during vitreous tap. Bacterial culture from the vitreous sample in each case had grown Bcc. Surveillance investigations for root cause analysis (RCA) were performed in the operating room (OR), admission, and day-care wards to localize the source.
RESULTS: Four patients had undergone phacoemulsification surgery, and one patient had undergone penetrating keratoplasty. Each patient received an initial dose of empiric intravitreal ceftazidime and vancomycin. The organism isolated in each case was sensitive to ceftazidime, cotrimoxazole, and meropenem and resistant to other antibiotics. Core vitrectomy was done after 48-60 hours in four patients along with intravitreal imipenem injection. One patient did not provide consent for core vitrectomy and subsequently developed phthisis bulbi. Three patients had subsequent recurrences. Two patients had a final BCVA of 20/60, two had BCVA better than 20/200, while one patient had no perception of light. None of the surveillance samples from the OR complex could isolate Burkholderia.
CONCLUSION: Extensive OR surveillance should be done to identify the potential source of infection. However, the source may not be identifiable in few instances like in our case. Longer follow-up is recommended in cases of Bcc endophthalmitis due to the persistent nature of the infection.
METHODS: Details of five patients who developed postoperative cluster endophthalmitis were collected. For each patient, an undiluted vitreous sample was collected during vitreous tap. Bacterial culture from the vitreous sample in each case had grown Bcc. Surveillance investigations for root cause analysis (RCA) were performed in the operating room (OR), admission, and day-care wards to localize the source.
RESULTS: Four patients had undergone phacoemulsification surgery, and one patient had undergone penetrating keratoplasty. Each patient received an initial dose of empiric intravitreal ceftazidime and vancomycin. The organism isolated in each case was sensitive to ceftazidime, cotrimoxazole, and meropenem and resistant to other antibiotics. Core vitrectomy was done after 48-60 hours in four patients along with intravitreal imipenem injection. One patient did not provide consent for core vitrectomy and subsequently developed phthisis bulbi. Three patients had subsequent recurrences. Two patients had a final BCVA of 20/60, two had BCVA better than 20/200, while one patient had no perception of light. None of the surveillance samples from the OR complex could isolate Burkholderia.
CONCLUSION: Extensive OR surveillance should be done to identify the potential source of infection. However, the source may not be identifiable in few instances like in our case. Longer follow-up is recommended in cases of Bcc endophthalmitis due to the persistent nature of the infection.