Endophthalmitis Caused by <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i>: Clinical Characteristics, Outcomes, and Antibiotics Sensitivities

Lin, Jiaqi; Huang, Shanshan; Liu, Manli; Lin, Lixia; Gu, Jianjun; Duan, Fang

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1265556

Journal of Ophthalmology

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 1265556 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1265556

Endophthalmitis Caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Clinical Characteristics, Outcomes, and Antibiotics Sensitivities

Jiaqi Lin,¹Shanshan Huang,¹Manli Liu,¹Lixia Lin,¹Jianjun Gu,¹and Fang Duan¹

Academic Editor: Dirk Sandner

Received30 Apr 2022

Revised26 Aug 2022

Accepted03 Sept 2022

Published14 Sept 2022

Abstract

Purpose. The aim of this study is to report the clinical characteristics, visual outcomes, and antibiotic susceptibilities of patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis. Methods. The medical records of patients with culture-proven Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis treated from June 2013 to December 2019 were reviewed. Results. This study included 36 eyes of 36 patients. The clinical settings included ocular trauma (15/36), corneal ulcer (9/36), postoperative endophthalmitis (5/36), endogenous (3/36), and unknown (4/36). Sixteen patients underwent evisceration, 13 patients underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), 2 patients were treated with only intravitreal antibiotics, and 5 patients did not undergo surgery. Only one patient achieved a visual acuity of 20/400, and the others had all counting fingers or below. The cultured Pseudomonas aeruginosa was 100% sensitive to gentamicin, tobramycin, amikacin, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin and, approximately 95% sensitive to meropenem, imipenem, and aztreonam. Conclusion. The visual outcomes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis were very poor, and the evisceration rate remained high. Pseudomonas aeruginosa has good susceptibility to gentamicin, tobramycin, amikacin, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin.

1. Introduction

Endophthalmitis is one of the rarest and most destructive diseases due to its emergency, and it often results in irreversible visual loss [1, 2]. Endophthalmitis is classified as endogenous or exogenous according to the route of infection. Exogenous endophthalmitis is often caused by intraocular surgery, open globe injuries, intraocular foreign bodies, and corneal ulcers, etc [3]. Endogenous endophthalmitis is also called metastatic endophthalmitis because the pathogen spreads into the eye through blood and enters the eye through the blood-eye barrier and is reported to account for 2–41% of all endophthalmitis cases [4–6]. According to previous studies, endophthalmitis caused by gram-negative bacteria accounts for 10.7% to 29.1% of all endophthalmitis [7–12], and the visual prognosis is very poor [13]. Among endophthalmitis caused by gram-negative bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa made up the largest proportion (23.0%–54.6%) [7–10, 14, 15].

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a gram-negative bacillus commonly found in soil and moist environments. Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis may complicate penetrating injuries of the eye, intraocular surgery, corneal ulcer, and spread from other sites of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. It is typically rapidly progressive and associated with severe vision-threatening and worse clinical outcomes [13, 16–18]. Thus, the purpose of this study is to review the characteristics of the clinical manifestations and vision acuity (VA) outcomes of culture-proven Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis and the results of antibiotic susceptibilities.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Population

This retrospective study followed the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was conducted after being approved by the Ethics Committee of the Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center (ZOC) of Sun Yat-sen University. The requirement for patients’ consent was waived given the retrospective nature of the study. Clinical records were reviewed for all patients with culture-proven endophthalmitis caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa who were admitted to Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center from June 2013 to December 2019. The diagnosis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis is correlated with clinical manifestations, including eye pain, decreased vision, vitreitis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa culture, as proven in the laboratory. Medical history, demographic data, laboratory results, and treatment records, including surgical records, were collected and analyzed. Vitreous opacity was detected by an ocular B-mode ultrasonography scan. Evisceration operates in patients who are infected with severe suppurative endophthalmitis and who have no light perception and no possibility of vision recovery. Intravitreal injections of antibiotics were only used in patients with endophthalmitis or when there was a strong suspicion of infection, and vancomycin and ceftazidime were commonly used. Visual acuity was tested using an international standard visual chart. No light perception (NLP) is the visual acuity of an eviscerated eye.

2.2. Pathogen Isolation and Identification

The aqueous humor was aspirated from the anterior chamber through the limbus with a needle on a 1-mL syringe. Vitreous humor specimens were collected from the flat part of the ciliary body before antibiotic injection or vitrectomy through the pars plana. Corneal specimens were collected by scraping the base and edge of the corneal ulceration with a platinum spatula; one 2.5 ml syringe was used to extract the eye contents during evisceration surgery. The specimens were inoculated in bacterial culture medium such as blood agar or chocolate agar and prepared for Gram staining and were Giemsa staining. An automated system (VITEK 2 compact BioMérieux, Inc, Marcyl’ Étoile, France) was used to identify bacterial isolates.

2.3. Antibiotic Susceptibility Test

In in vitro testing, the eye contents, corneal scraping material, corneal tissue, conjunctival sac secretion, or vitreous humor were cultured to confirm the positive culture results of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The minimum inhibitory concentration method was applied to detect the sensitivity of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to β-lactam antibiotics, fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides, macrolides and carbapenems. Antibiotic susceptibility was determined according to the method of clinical and laboratory standards research. The susceptibilities of the bacteria to these drugs were recorded as “resistant”, “intermediate” or “sensitive”. For the purpose of this study, being “intermediate” and being “sensitive” were both considered sensitive.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The analysis of characteristics proportions and antibiotics susceptibilities were expressed as count and percentages. The age was summarized by median to present.

3. Results

A total of 36 patients (17 right eyes and 19 left eyes) were diagnosed with endophthalmitis and culture-proven Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The median age was 54 years old (range 6–85 years old). There were 26 men and 10 women. Among them, 2 patients had panophthalmitis, 4 patients had orbital cellulitis, and 13 patients had systemic diseases, including 5 cases of diabetes, 1 case of gastric ulcer, 1 case of kidney stones, 6 cases of hypertension, 1 case of kidney transplantation, and 1 case of hydronephrosis and syphilis. The clinical settings of patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis were trauma (n = 15), corneal ulcer (n = 9), postoperative endophthalmitis (n = 5, including 3 phacoemulsifications combined with intraocular lens implantation and 2 corneal transplantations), endogenous (n = 3), and unknown (n = 4). It cost patients 6.9 days on average during the course of hospitalizations. When patients were clinically diagnosed with endophthalmitis, intravenous antibiotics were used immediately. Except for one patient who was not suitable for intravenous antibiotics for kidney transplantation, only topical therapy and subconjunctival vancomycin and dexamethasone were administered. Ceftazidine or levofloxacin was most common, the proportions of patients who were treated by intravenous injections with ceftazidime, cefuroxime, levofloxacin and vancomycin are 29/36, 12/36, 19/36, and 2/36, respectively. Twenty-five patients received corticosteroid therapy, 19 received dexamethasone, 6 received prednisolone. Subconjunctival injections of tobramycin and dexamethasone were given to 7 patients. Ultrasound B-mode images showed turbidity of the vitreous in all patients, and 15 of them had retinal detachment. In the current study, 31 patients underwent surgical operations, 16 patients were eviscerated (only one patient previously received intravitreal antibiotics); 13 patients underwent PPV (including 5 patients had received intravitreal antibiotics), 2 patients received intravitreal antibiotics only. Among the 8 cases of intravitreal injection, 1 case was tobramycin, 1 case was ceftazidime, and 6 cases were vancomycin. There were 5 patients did not receive surgery: 1 patient was transferred to other hospital on account of suspicion of intracranial infection; infections were under control in 4 patients after treatments. Of them, two patients received corneal transplants. Among patients who underwent PPV surgery, 10 were filled with silicone oil in the vitreous cavity, 1 was filled with inert gas C3F8, and 2 were filled with balanced salt solation (BSS). Two patients had been treated with only intravitreal antibiotics without further surgery. The initial VA of all patients were hand motions (HM) or below. At last, only one patient had a visual acuity of 20/400, 3 patients had counting fingers (CF), 8 patients had HM, and 6 patients had light perception (LP), and 18 patients had NLP (including 16 patients with eviscerations). The detailed information of the patients is shown in Table 1 and the summary information are shown in Table 2.

Among 36 patients with culture-proven Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 3 patients were coinfected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other pathogens. In detail, one patient had mixed infections of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and gram-positive cocci, confirmed by smear examination. The second one was mix infections of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and candida. Another patient had mixed infections of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, amycolic acid, and corynebacterium sicca.

The susceptibility results of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are shown in Table 3. The cultured-proved Pseudomonas aeruginosa is 100% sensitive to gentamicin, tobramycin, amikacin, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin, with 96.7% sensitive to imipenem, 96.6% sensitive to meropenem, 95.2% sensitive to aztreonam, 75.9% sensitive to piperacillin-tazobactam, and cefepime, 75% sensitive to ofloxacin, and 74.3% sensitive to ceftazidime and carbapenems, and is 100% resistant to macrolide azithromycin medicine.

4. Discussion

A total of 36 patients (36 eyes) with culture-proven Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis were reviewed. Of them, 41.7% had trauma, 25.0% had corneal ulceration, 13.9% had intraocular surgeries, and 8.3% had endogenous infections. The outcome of Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis was still poor, and 16 patients underwent evisceration. Only one patient had a visual acuity of 20/400, and the other patients had a visual acuity of CF or below. The cultured Pseudomonas aeruginosa was 100% sensitive to gentamicin, tobramycin, amikacin, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin.

In our study, trauma was most common, followed by corneal ulcers and intraocular surgeries, which was different from previous studies reporting that Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis is mostly caused by cataract surgery and corneal ulceration. For example, Eifrig et al. reported that cataract surgery accounted for 32.1%, corneal ulcers accounted for 25%, and trauma only accounted for 3.5% in the United States [13]. Similarly, Chen et al. reported that cataract surgery accounted for 15.3%, keratitis or scleritis accounted for 44.4%, and trauma accounted for only 6.9% in Taiwan [17]. Florida and Iran reported 33.3% and 85% of cataract surgeries, respectively, and there were no cases of corneal ulcers or trauma [18, 19]. Many factors may have contributed to this discrepancy because the etiology of endophthalmitis varies depending on the region and environment.

Endophthalmitis caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a devastating intraocular infection and is always associated with poor visual outcomes. In the current study, the initial VA of all patients were HM or below. The final VA was 20/400 in only one patient; CF in 3 patients; HM in 8 patients; LP in 6 patients; and or NLP in 18 patients. Similarly, Falavarjani et al. reported that the final VA was HM or worse in 90% of patients, and evisceration was performed in 20% of patients [18]. Chen et al. reported that the final VA was LP or NLP in 86.1% of patients, and evisceration was performed in 50% of patients [17]. Sridhar et al. reported that the final VA was LP or NLP in 92% of patients, and evisceration was performed in 42% of patients [19]. All these studies indicated the visual outcomes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis were generally poor, with a high rate of evisceration.

Currently, PPV has become the most common and useful surgical method for the treatment of endophthalmitis, and PPV combined with silicone oil can inhibit the progression of endophthalmitis [20–23]. In the current study, only 15 patients (36.1%) underwent PPV, which was much lower than that in the above studies. The low proportion of PPV might be related to corneal ulcerations, which could not undergo PPV. The previous studies showed that infectious ulcerations were associated with a high proportion of evisceration [24–27]. In recent years, endoscopy-assisted vitrectomy was considered an alternative treatment for endophthalmitis when patients are complicated by poor visibility through the anterior segment [28, 29]. As an ophthalmic endoscope had the potential to overcome the limitations of poor visualization and enhance the visualization of the posterior segment, which allowed the surgeon to perform vitrectomy safely and completely. Therefore, PPV is still considerable in the treatment of endophthalmitis, and silicone oil tamponades are also an important method to control endophthalmitis.

In our study, Pseudomonas aeruginosa was 100% sensitive to gentamicin, tobramycin, amikacin, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin, approximately 95% sensitive to meropenem, imipenem, and aztreonam, and approximately 75% sensitive to neomycin, piperacillin, cefepime, ceftazidime, and ofloxacin. Chen et al. reviewed 71 patients with endophthalmitis in Taiwan from 1997 to 2007 and reported that Pseudomonas aeruginosa was almost 100% sensitive to ceftazidime, cefepime, imipenem, and aztreonam, 94% sensitive to amikacin and 86% sensitive to gentamicin [17]. The susceptibilities of ceftazidime, cefepime, and imipenem were higher than our results, and the susceptibilities of amikacin and gentamicin were lower than ours. The most significant change is the decreased sensitivity of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to ceftazidime. Among our 36 patients, 29 patients intravenously used ceftazidime immediately after the diagnosis of endophthalmitis (before the culture results were released). The extensive use of ceftazidime might contribute to the increased resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to ceftazidime. Falavarjani et al. reviewed 20 eyes of 19 patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa from 2005 to 2015 and found 100% sensitivity to ciprofloxacin and imipenem [18], which is consistent with our results. However, they reported 88.3% amikacin, 83.6% tobramycin, and 76.5% gentamicin, which is lower than our results. The differences might be explained by the susceptibility to antibiotics changing with time.

The limitations of this study included its retrospective nature and relatively small size. Some of the initial origins of Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis were not available. Furthermore, we only included cultured-positive cases, which could have underrepresented the overall etiological factors of Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis. Nevertheless, our study provides valid data to describe the clinical characteristics, visual outcomes and antibiotics sensitivities of culture-proven Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis.

5. Conclusions

This study reviewed the clinical data of 36 patients with culture-proven Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis. Ocular trauma accounted for 41.7% of Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis cases, followed by corneal ulcer (25.0%) and postoperative endophthalmitis (13.9%). The outcomes of treatment for Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis in the current study were poor and are consistent with previous literature on this subject. Sixteen patients underwent evisceration. Only one patient had a visual acuity of 20/400, and the other patients had a visual acuity of CF or below. The cultured Pseudomonas aeruginosa was 100% sensitive to gentamicin, tobramycin, amikacin, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin. Unfortunately, the sensitivities of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to ceftazidime, cefepime, and imipenem decreased.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Authors’ Contributions

Jiaqi Lin and Shanshan Huang equally contributed to this work.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong province (grant no. 2020A1515011364); Fundamental Research Funds of the State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology (grant no. 30306020240020217); and High-Level Hospital Construction Project (grant no. 303010401).

References

P. P. Connell, E. C. O’Neill, D. Fabinyi et al., “Endogenous endophthalmitis: 10-year experience at a tertiary referral centre,” Eye, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 66–72, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. Sheu, Korean Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 283–289, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site
M. L. Durand, Clinical Microbiology and Infections, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 227–234, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site
E. T. Cunningham, H. W. Flynn, N. Relhan, and M. Zierhut, “Endogenous endophthalmitis,” Ocular Immunology and Inflammation, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 491–495, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Shrader, J. D. Band, C. B. Lauter, and P. Murphy, “The clinical spectrum of endophthalmitis: incidence, predisposing factors, and features influencing outcome,” Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 162, no. 1, pp. 115–120, 1990.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Krause, N. E. Bechrakis, H. Heimann, D. Kildal, and M. H. Foerster, “Incidence and outcome of endophthalmitis over a 13-year period,” Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 88–94, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Schimel, D. Miller, and H. W. Flynn, “Endophthalmitis isolates and antibiotic susceptibilities: a 10-year review of culture-proven cases,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 156, no. 1, pp. 50–52.e1, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. J. Stevenson, R. C. H. Dawkins, H. Sheorey, M. B. McGuinness, A. H. Hurley, and P. J. Allen, “Gram‐negative endophthalmitis: a prospective study examining the microbiology, clinical associations and visual outcomes following infection,” Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 813–820, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. P. Moloney and J. Park, “Microbiological isolates and antibiotic sensitivities in culture-proven endophthalmitis: a 15-year review,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 98, no. 11, pp. 1492–1497, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Long, B. Liu, C. Xu, Y. Jing, Z. Yuan, and X. Lin, “Causative organisms of post-traumatic endophthalmitis: a 20-year retrospective study,” BMC Ophthalmology, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 34, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Ramakrishnan, M. J. Bharathi, C. Shivkumar et al., “Microbiological profile of culture-proven cases of exogenous and endogenous endophthalmitis: a 10-year retrospective study,” Eye, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 945–956, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Duan, K. Wu, J. Liao et al., “Causative microorganisms of infectious endophthalmitis: a 5-year retrospective study,” Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 2016, pp. 1–7, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. W. Eifrig, I. U. Scott, H. W. Flynn, and D. Miller, “Endophthalmitis caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa,” Ophthalmology, vol. 110, no. 9, pp. 1714–1717, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. V. Dave, V. P. Dave, S. Sharma et al., “Infectious endophthalmitis leading to evisceration: spectrum of bacterial and fungal pathogens and antibacterial susceptibility profile,” Journal of Ophthalmic Inflammation and Infection, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 9, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. D. Irvine, W. D. Irvine, H. W. Flynn, D. Miller, and S. C. Pflugfelder, “Endophthalmitis caused by gram-negative organisms,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 110, no. 10, pp. 1450–1454, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. de Bentzmann and P. Plésiat, “The Pseudomonas aeruginosa opportunistic pathogen and human infections,” Environmental Microbiology, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1655–1665, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. J. Chen, M. H. Sun, C. C. Lai et al., “Endophthalmitis caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in taiwan,” Retina, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1193–1198, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. G. Falavarjani, S. A. Alemzadeh, A. Habibi, A. Hadavandkhani, S. Askari, and A. Pourhabibi, “Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis: clinical outcomes and antibiotic susceptibilities,” Ocular Immunology and Inflammation, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 377–381, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Sridhar, A. E. Kuriyan, H. W. Flynn, and D. Miller, “Endophthalmitis caused by PSEUDOMONAS aeruginosa: clinical features, antibiotic susceptibilities, and treatment outcomes,” Retina, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1101–1106, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. P. Dave, R. R. Pappuru, M. Tyagi, A. Pathengay, and T. Das, “Endoscopic vitrectomy in endophthalmitis: initial experience of 33 cases at a tertiary eye care center,” Clinical Ophthalmology, vol. 13, pp. 243–251, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ozdamar, C. Aras, R. Ozturk, E. Akin, M. Karacorlu, and C. Ercikan, “In vitro antimicrobial activity of silicone oil against endophthalmitis-causing agents,” Retina, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 122–126, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. P. Dave, J. Joseph, P. Jayabhasker, R. R. Pappuru, A. Pathengay, and T. Das, “Does ophthalmic-grade silicone oil possess antimicrobial properties?” Journal of Ophthalmic Inflammation and Infection, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 20, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Bali, P. Huyghe, L. Caspers, and J. Libert, “Vitrectomy and silicone oil in the treatment of acute endophthalmitis. Preliminary results,” Bulletin de la Société Belge d’Ophtalmologie, no. 288, pp. 9–14, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Zapp, D. Loos, N. Feucht et al., “Microbial keratitis-induced endophthalmitis: incidence, symptoms, therapy, visual prognosis and outcomes,” BMC Ophthalmology, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 112, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. C. O’Neill, J. Yeoh, D. C. A. Fabinyi et al., “Risk factors, microbial profiles and prognosis of microbial keratitis-associated endophthalmitis in high-risk eyes,” Graefes Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 252, no. 9, pp. 1457–1462, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. B. Yang, Y. Y. Liu, Z. X. Huang, Y. Mao, L. Zhao, and Z. P. Xu, “Clinical analysis of 1593 patients with infectious endophthalmitis: a 12-year study at a tertiary referral center in western China,” Chinese Medical Journal, vol. 131, no. 14, pp. 1658–1665, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. R. Henry, H. W. Flynn, D. Miller, R. K. Forster, and E. C. Alfonso, “Infectious keratitis progressing to endophthalmitis: a 15-year study of microbiology, associated factors, and clinical outcomes,” Ophthalmology, vol. 119, no. 12, pp. 2443–2449, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Pan, Y. Liu, R. Wang et al., “Treatment of Bacillus cereus endophthalmitis with endoscopy-assisted vitrectomy,” Medicine (Baltimore), vol. 96, no. 50, p. e8701, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Ren, R. Jiang, G. Xu et al., “Endoscopy-assisted vitrectomy for treatment of severe endophthalmitis with retinal detachment,” Graefes Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 251, no. 7, pp. 1797–1800, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Jiaqi Lin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

445

Downloads

520

Citations