The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Results of the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study: A Randomized Trial of Immediate Vitrectomy and of Intravenous Antibiotics for the Treatment of Postoperative Bacterial Endophthalmitis
Abstract
Objective: To determine the roles of immediate pars plana vitrectomy (VIT) and systemic antibiotic treatment in the management of postoperative endophthalmitis. Design: Investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Setting: Private and university-based retina-vitreous practices. Patients: A total of 420 patients who had clinical evidence of endophthalmitis within 6 weeks after cataract surgery or secondary intraocular lens implantation. Interventions: Random assignment according to a 2×2 factorial design to treatment with VIT or vitreous tap or biopsy (TAP) and to treatment with or without systemic antibiotics (ceftazidime and amikacin). Main Outcome Measures: A 9-month evaluation of visual acuity assessed by an Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study acuity chart and media clarity assessed both clinically and photographically. Results: There was no difference in final visual acuity or media clarity with or without the use of systemic antibiotics. In patients whose initial visual acuity was hand motions or better, there was no difference in visual outcome whether or not an immediate VIT was performed. However, in the subgroup of patients with initial light perception-only vision, VIT produced a threefold increase in the frequency of achieving 20/40 or better acuity (33% vs 11%), approximately a twofold chance of achieving 20/100 or better acuity (56% vs 30%), and a 50% decrease in the frequency of severe visual loss (20% vs 47%) over TAP. In this group of patients, the difference between VIT and TAP was statistically significant (P<.001, log rank test for cumulative visual acuity scores) over the entire range of vision. Conclusions: Omission of systemic antibiotic treatment can reduce toxic effects, costs, and length of hospital stay. Routine immediate VIT is not necessary in patients with better than light perception vision at presentation but is of substantial benefit for those who have light perception-only vision.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Candidiasis
Rex, J. H., Walsh, T. J., Sobel, J. D., Filler, S. G., Pappas, P. G., Dismukes, W. E., & Edwards, J. E. (2000) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/313749 · Cited by 927
INTRAVITREAL INJECTION OF THERAPEUTIC AGENTS
PEYMAN, G. A., LAD, E. M., & MOSHFEGHI, D. M. (2009) · Retina · doi:10.1097/iae.0b013e3181a94f01 · Cited by 255
Aflibercept-Related Sterile Intraocular Inflammation Outcomes
Greenberg, J. P., Belin, P., Butler, J., Feiler, D., Mueller, C., Tye, A., Friedlander, S. M., Emerson, G. G., & Ferrone, P. J. (2019) · Ophthalmology Retina · doi:10.1016/j.oret.2019.04.006 · Cited by 69
Sterile Intraocular Inflammation After Intravitreal Injection—Diagnosis and Management
Greenberg, J. P., Peiris, T. J., & Lieberman, R. M. (2019) · Advances in Ophthalmology and Optometry · doi:10.1016/j.yaoo.2019.04.010 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Venue
- Archives of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1995-12-01
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1479
- ISSN
- 0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4253875289
- Cited by
- 1,298
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Results of the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study: A Randomized Trial of Immediate Vitrectomy and of Intravenous Antibiotics for the Treatment of Postoperative Bacterial Endophthalmitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archopht.1995.01100120009001
- The paper
- Results of the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study: A Randomized Trial of Immediate Vitrectomy and of Intravenous Antibiotics for the Treatment of Postoperative Bacterial Endophthalmitis. (1995). Archives of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1995.01100120009001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.