POSTINTRAVITREAL INJECTION AND POSTCATARACT EXTRACTION ENDOPHTHALMITIS VISUAL OUTCOMES BY ORGANISM: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

PURPOSE: To compare visual outcomes of endophthalmitis following intravitreal injections (IVIs) and cataract extraction by causative organism. METHODS: Searches in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase identified articles reporting visual outcomes by causative organisms in post-IVI and cataract extraction endophthalmitis cases from January 2010 to February 2022. A random-effects meta-analysis compared visual improvement among endophthalmitis cases caused by causative organisms. RESULTS: Eighty-five out of 3,317 retrieved studies were included. The highest degree of visual acuity improvement in both post-IVI and postcataract extraction endophthalmitis was seen in cases caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci, followed by gram-negative organisms and other gram-positive organisms such as streptococci and enterococci. Culture-negative cases showed more visual acuity improvement than culture-positive cases in post-IVI endophthalmitis. These results remained consistent when accounting for endophthalmitis treatment, IVI type, condition requiring IVI treatment, follow-up period, and initial preprocedural visual acuity. CONCLUSION: Coagulase-negative staphylococci and gram-negative organisms show the most visual acuity improvement in both post-IVI and postcataract extraction endophthalmitis. Other gram-positive organisms such as streptococci and enterococci are associated with less visual improvement. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that the results of the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study are consistent decades later despite advancements in surgical practices and the evolution of microorganisms over time.

TAP AND INJECT VERSUS PARS PLANA VITRECTOMY FOR POSTPROCEDURAL ENDOPHTHALMITIS: A Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the visual outcomes after prompt pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with tap biopsy and intravitreal antimicrobial injection to treat postinjection and postsurgery endophthalmitis. METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase databases were searched for articles published between January 2010 and November 2020. Two independent reviewers selected articles and extracted data. We analyzed data in RevMan 5.3 and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool. The mean improvement in visual outcome was compared between PPV and intravitreal antimicrobial injection as a relative risk of improving ≥2 lines and a mean logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution difference in improvement. RESULTS: Fifteen retrospective case series (1,355 eyes), of which 739 eyes (55%) received intravitreal antimicrobial injection and 616 (45%) received PPV as initial treatment, were included. The overall relative risk of improving 2 or more lines in PPV in comparison with intravitreal antimicrobial injection was 1.04 (95% CI 0.88-1.23; P = 0.61; I2 = 0%) with a mean difference of 0.04 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.27; P = 0.69; I2 = 0%). The results stayed robust when subgroup analysis based on causative procedure for endophthalmitis was performed. CONCLUSION: Intravitreal antimicrobial injection is noninferior to PPV for the treatment of postcataract operation, postinjection, and post-PPV endophthalmitis.

Endoscopic ultrasound versus computed tomography in determining the resectability of pancreatic cancer: A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) with pancreas protocol are used in assessing the resectability of neoplastic pancreatic lesions. Here, we performed a diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) meta-analysis, comparing the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and CT in evaluating the resectability of pancreatic cancer using surgical assessment as the reference standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A comprehensive electronic search was conducted up to March 2020. Studies comparing EUS and CT in assessing the resectability of pancreatic cancer using surgical assessment as reference standard were included. QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. After data extraction, an analysis was done using DerSimonian Laird method (random-effects model) to estimate the overall diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and determine the best-fitting receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve. RESULTS: Two studies, with 77 subjects combined, were included in the analysis. Overall, the risk of bias was moderate. EUS and CT were comparable in determining the resectability of pancreatic cancer with AUC = 75% (95% confidence interval (CI) 66%- 84%) for EUS as compared to 78% (95% CI 69%- 87%) for CT (P > 0.05). Pooled sensitivity and specificity was 87% (95% CI 70%- 96%) and 63% (95% CI 48%- 77%), respectively for EUS and 87% (95% CI 70%- 96%) and 70% (95% CI 55%- 83%), respectively for CT. DOR was 11.51 (95% CI 3.55- 36.81) for EUS as compared to 15.91 (95% CI 4.83- 51.62) for CT (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both EUS and CT provide reasonable sensitivity and specificity to detect the resectability of pancreatic cancer.