Skip to main content

Table 6 Comparison between two periods

From: Clinical analysis of infectious endophthalmitis following glaucoma filtration surgery

 

BAE presented years

P

2020–2022 (n = 12)

2012–2019 (n = 16)

Age, mean ± SD, y

45.2 ± 14.5

52.8 ± 14.1

0.155

Male, n (%)

10 (83.3%)

10 (62.5%)

0.403

Interval between glaucoma surgery and BAE, mean ± SD, y

10.8 ± 5.5 (rage 4.0–20.0)

9.1 ± 5.3 (rage 0.2–19.0)

0.403

Interval between symptoms and treatment, mean ± SD, d

5.8 ± 9.6 (rage 0.42–60.0)

4.4 ± 4.7 (rage 1.0–20.0)

0.092

IOP at onset of BAE, mean ± SD, mmHg

22.9 ± 15.4 (rage 9.6–60.0)

15.4 ± 15.0 (rage 3.0–52.0)

0.163

IOP at the final follow-up, mean ± SD, mmHg

16.7 ± 8.1 (rage 7.0–37.0)

13.6 ± 8.4 (rage 7.0–19.0)

0.192

Presence of a bleb leak, n (%)

4 (33.3%)

5 (31.3%)

1.000

PPV combined with tap-and-inject

  

1.000

 Initial tap-and-inject

5 (41.7%)

6 (37.5%)

 

 Initial PPV

7 (58.3%)

10 (62.5)

 

 Number of tap and inject

1.4 ± 0.7

1.3 ± 0.7

0.513

 Number of PPV

1.3 ± 0.7

1.1 ± 0.3

0.424

Organisms culture-positive, n (%)

8 (66.7%)

7 (43.8%)

0.229

VA at onset of Endophthalmitis (logMAR)

2.5 ± 0.2

2.6 ± 0.3

0.642

VA at final follow-up (logMAR)

2.0 ± 0.9

2.3 ± 0.8

0.372

  1. VA Visual acuity, BAE Bleb-associated endophthalmitis, CF Counting fingers, HM Hand movement, LP Light perception, NLP No LP