Diagnostic sensitivity of vitrectomy and vitreous biopsy for vitritis

Purpose: To investigate sensitivity of diagnostic vitrectomy and vitreous biopsy for patients with vitritis of unknown aetiology. Methods: Retrospective analysis of all vitrectomies and vitreous biopsies, performed at St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK, for vitritis between February 2001 and February 2...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of ophthalmology 2022-07, Vol.32 (4), p.2440-2444
Hauptverfasser: Kumaran, Neruban, Tan, Shi Zhuan, Neffendorf, James E, Robins, Julian J, Dell’Aversana Orabona, Giancarlo, Williamson, Tom H
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2444
container_issue 4
container_start_page 2440
container_title European journal of ophthalmology
container_volume 32
creator Kumaran, Neruban
Tan, Shi Zhuan
Neffendorf, James E
Robins, Julian J
Dell’Aversana Orabona, Giancarlo
Williamson, Tom H
description Purpose: To investigate sensitivity of diagnostic vitrectomy and vitreous biopsy for patients with vitritis of unknown aetiology. Methods: Retrospective analysis of all vitrectomies and vitreous biopsies, performed at St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK, for vitritis between February 2001 and February 2019. Patients were identified using the VITREOR database and records were reviewed. Patients were categorised as infectious, non-infectious or masquerade based on final diagnosis. Sensitivity of both diagnostic pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and vitreous cutter biopsy in each category was investigated. Furthermore, data on gender, age, and method of anaesthesia were also collected. Results: In our cohort, 64 patients underwent PPV with a diagnostic sensitivity of 67% (43/64) overall and 60% (18/30), 56% (9/16) and 89% (16/18) for those with infectious, masquerade and non-infectious aetiologies, respectively. In comparison, 96 patients underwent a vitreous cutter biopsy with diagnostic sensitivity of 74% (71/96) overall and 71% (55/77), 67% (4/6) and 92% (12/13) for those with infectious, masquerade and non-infectious aetiologies, respectively. No statistically significant difference in sensitivity was identified between the vitrectomy and vitreous biopsy groups for either aetiology. Patients undergoing vitrectomy were noted to be older (p = 0.02) and more likely to undergo a general anaesthetic (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Herein we demonstrate similar diagnostic sensitivity of PPV and vitreous cutter biopsy in patients with vitritis of unknown aetiology.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/11206721211041025
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>sage_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_11206721211041025</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_11206721211041025</sage_id><sourcerecordid>10.1177_11206721211041025</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c292t-f0257e1dacf8a6785da735310b8841a22035af1e07d6071002bad0d64ebfc2163</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UMtOwzAQtBCIlsIHcEH5gZRdx7GTIyrlIVXiAufIie3KFYkjO0HK3-MS4ILEaV8zo9kh5BphjSjELSIFLihSRGAIND8hSxSUpRyQn8Y-3tMjYEEuQjgAUCgZPSeLjLG8pLxcku29lfvOhcE2SdBdsIP9sMOUOJPE6nUzuHZKZKfm0Y0hqa3rw5QY5792kREuyZmR70FffdcVeXvYvm6e0t3L4_Pmbpc2tKRDaqJFoVHJxhSSiyJXUmR5hlAXBUNJKWS5NKhBKA4Co99aKlCc6do0FHm2IjjrNt6F4LWpem9b6acKoTpGUv2JJHJuZk4_1q1Wv4yfDCJgPQOC3Ovq4EbfxR_-UfwE91VpKg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Diagnostic sensitivity of vitrectomy and vitreous biopsy for vitritis</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><creator>Kumaran, Neruban ; Tan, Shi Zhuan ; Neffendorf, James E ; Robins, Julian J ; Dell’Aversana Orabona, Giancarlo ; Williamson, Tom H</creator><creatorcontrib>Kumaran, Neruban ; Tan, Shi Zhuan ; Neffendorf, James E ; Robins, Julian J ; Dell’Aversana Orabona, Giancarlo ; Williamson, Tom H</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: To investigate sensitivity of diagnostic vitrectomy and vitreous biopsy for patients with vitritis of unknown aetiology. Methods: Retrospective analysis of all vitrectomies and vitreous biopsies, performed at St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK, for vitritis between February 2001 and February 2019. Patients were identified using the VITREOR database and records were reviewed. Patients were categorised as infectious, non-infectious or masquerade based on final diagnosis. Sensitivity of both diagnostic pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and vitreous cutter biopsy in each category was investigated. Furthermore, data on gender, age, and method of anaesthesia were also collected. Results: In our cohort, 64 patients underwent PPV with a diagnostic sensitivity of 67% (43/64) overall and 60% (18/30), 56% (9/16) and 89% (16/18) for those with infectious, masquerade and non-infectious aetiologies, respectively. In comparison, 96 patients underwent a vitreous cutter biopsy with diagnostic sensitivity of 74% (71/96) overall and 71% (55/77), 67% (4/6) and 92% (12/13) for those with infectious, masquerade and non-infectious aetiologies, respectively. No statistically significant difference in sensitivity was identified between the vitrectomy and vitreous biopsy groups for either aetiology. Patients undergoing vitrectomy were noted to be older (p = 0.02) and more likely to undergo a general anaesthetic (p &lt; 0.01). Conclusions: Herein we demonstrate similar diagnostic sensitivity of PPV and vitreous cutter biopsy in patients with vitritis of unknown aetiology.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1120-6721</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1724-6016</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/11206721211041025</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34459269</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><ispartof>European journal of ophthalmology, 2022-07, Vol.32 (4), p.2440-2444</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c292t-f0257e1dacf8a6785da735310b8841a22035af1e07d6071002bad0d64ebfc2163</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0476-1101</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/11206721211041025$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/11206721211041025$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,21826,27931,27932,43628,43629</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34459269$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kumaran, Neruban</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Shi Zhuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neffendorf, James E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robins, Julian J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dell’Aversana Orabona, Giancarlo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williamson, Tom H</creatorcontrib><title>Diagnostic sensitivity of vitrectomy and vitreous biopsy for vitritis</title><title>European journal of ophthalmology</title><addtitle>Eur J Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>Purpose: To investigate sensitivity of diagnostic vitrectomy and vitreous biopsy for patients with vitritis of unknown aetiology. Methods: Retrospective analysis of all vitrectomies and vitreous biopsies, performed at St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK, for vitritis between February 2001 and February 2019. Patients were identified using the VITREOR database and records were reviewed. Patients were categorised as infectious, non-infectious or masquerade based on final diagnosis. Sensitivity of both diagnostic pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and vitreous cutter biopsy in each category was investigated. Furthermore, data on gender, age, and method of anaesthesia were also collected. Results: In our cohort, 64 patients underwent PPV with a diagnostic sensitivity of 67% (43/64) overall and 60% (18/30), 56% (9/16) and 89% (16/18) for those with infectious, masquerade and non-infectious aetiologies, respectively. In comparison, 96 patients underwent a vitreous cutter biopsy with diagnostic sensitivity of 74% (71/96) overall and 71% (55/77), 67% (4/6) and 92% (12/13) for those with infectious, masquerade and non-infectious aetiologies, respectively. No statistically significant difference in sensitivity was identified between the vitrectomy and vitreous biopsy groups for either aetiology. Patients undergoing vitrectomy were noted to be older (p = 0.02) and more likely to undergo a general anaesthetic (p &lt; 0.01). Conclusions: Herein we demonstrate similar diagnostic sensitivity of PPV and vitreous cutter biopsy in patients with vitritis of unknown aetiology.</description><issn>1120-6721</issn><issn>1724-6016</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9UMtOwzAQtBCIlsIHcEH5gZRdx7GTIyrlIVXiAufIie3KFYkjO0HK3-MS4ILEaV8zo9kh5BphjSjELSIFLihSRGAIND8hSxSUpRyQn8Y-3tMjYEEuQjgAUCgZPSeLjLG8pLxcku29lfvOhcE2SdBdsIP9sMOUOJPE6nUzuHZKZKfm0Y0hqa3rw5QY5792kREuyZmR70FffdcVeXvYvm6e0t3L4_Pmbpc2tKRDaqJFoVHJxhSSiyJXUmR5hlAXBUNJKWS5NKhBKA4Co99aKlCc6do0FHm2IjjrNt6F4LWpem9b6acKoTpGUv2JJHJuZk4_1q1Wv4yfDCJgPQOC3Ovq4EbfxR_-UfwE91VpKg</recordid><startdate>20220701</startdate><enddate>20220701</enddate><creator>Kumaran, Neruban</creator><creator>Tan, Shi Zhuan</creator><creator>Neffendorf, James E</creator><creator>Robins, Julian J</creator><creator>Dell’Aversana Orabona, Giancarlo</creator><creator>Williamson, Tom H</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0476-1101</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220701</creationdate><title>Diagnostic sensitivity of vitrectomy and vitreous biopsy for vitritis</title><author>Kumaran, Neruban ; Tan, Shi Zhuan ; Neffendorf, James E ; Robins, Julian J ; Dell’Aversana Orabona, Giancarlo ; Williamson, Tom H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c292t-f0257e1dacf8a6785da735310b8841a22035af1e07d6071002bad0d64ebfc2163</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kumaran, Neruban</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Shi Zhuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neffendorf, James E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robins, Julian J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dell’Aversana Orabona, Giancarlo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williamson, Tom H</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>European journal of ophthalmology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kumaran, Neruban</au><au>Tan, Shi Zhuan</au><au>Neffendorf, James E</au><au>Robins, Julian J</au><au>Dell’Aversana Orabona, Giancarlo</au><au>Williamson, Tom H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Diagnostic sensitivity of vitrectomy and vitreous biopsy for vitritis</atitle><jtitle>European journal of ophthalmology</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>2022-07-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>2440</spage><epage>2444</epage><pages>2440-2444</pages><issn>1120-6721</issn><eissn>1724-6016</eissn><abstract>Purpose: To investigate sensitivity of diagnostic vitrectomy and vitreous biopsy for patients with vitritis of unknown aetiology. Methods: Retrospective analysis of all vitrectomies and vitreous biopsies, performed at St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK, for vitritis between February 2001 and February 2019. Patients were identified using the VITREOR database and records were reviewed. Patients were categorised as infectious, non-infectious or masquerade based on final diagnosis. Sensitivity of both diagnostic pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and vitreous cutter biopsy in each category was investigated. Furthermore, data on gender, age, and method of anaesthesia were also collected. Results: In our cohort, 64 patients underwent PPV with a diagnostic sensitivity of 67% (43/64) overall and 60% (18/30), 56% (9/16) and 89% (16/18) for those with infectious, masquerade and non-infectious aetiologies, respectively. In comparison, 96 patients underwent a vitreous cutter biopsy with diagnostic sensitivity of 74% (71/96) overall and 71% (55/77), 67% (4/6) and 92% (12/13) for those with infectious, masquerade and non-infectious aetiologies, respectively. No statistically significant difference in sensitivity was identified between the vitrectomy and vitreous biopsy groups for either aetiology. Patients undergoing vitrectomy were noted to be older (p = 0.02) and more likely to undergo a general anaesthetic (p &lt; 0.01). Conclusions: Herein we demonstrate similar diagnostic sensitivity of PPV and vitreous cutter biopsy in patients with vitritis of unknown aetiology.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>34459269</pmid><doi>10.1177/11206721211041025</doi><tpages>5</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0476-1101</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1120-6721
ispartof European journal of ophthalmology, 2022-07, Vol.32 (4), p.2440-2444
issn 1120-6721
1724-6016
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_11206721211041025
source Access via SAGE
title Diagnostic sensitivity of vitrectomy and vitreous biopsy for vitritis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-04T12%3A16%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-sage_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Diagnostic%20sensitivity%20of%20vitrectomy%20and%20vitreous%20biopsy%20for%20vitritis&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20ophthalmology&rft.au=Kumaran,%20Neruban&rft.date=2022-07-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=2440&rft.epage=2444&rft.pages=2440-2444&rft.issn=1120-6721&rft.eissn=1724-6016&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/11206721211041025&rft_dat=%3Csage_cross%3E10.1177_11206721211041025%3C/sage_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/34459269&rft_sage_id=10.1177_11206721211041025&rfr_iscdi=true