方法：将34例34眼患者随机分为两组，保留透明晶状体组(15例)：行玻璃体切除时保留透明晶状体； 摘除透明晶状体组(19例)：行玻璃体切除时摘除透明晶状体。术后均随访6～12mo，分析透明晶状体不同处理方法时术后视力(矫正后)及眼部一般情况。

结果：保留透明晶状体组，视力提高14眼，视力提高为93%； 摘除透明晶状体组，视力提高18眼，视力提高为95%。保留透明晶状体组，1眼眼内炎未能控制，为7%； 摘除透明晶状体组，1眼眼内炎未能控制，为5%。两组比较差异无显著性(P>0.05)。术后随访6～12mo，两组均无眼内炎复发病例。

结论：感染性眼内炎玻璃体切除时保留和摘除透明晶状体临床疗效无明显差异。

METHODS: Thirty-four patients(34 eyes)were randomly divided into two groups. Retaining transparent crystal group(15 cases):vitrectomy but retained the transparent crystal; Extracting transparent crystal group(19 cases): vitrectomy and removed transparent crystal. The follow-up period was for 6-12 months and clinical efficacy(corrected visual acuity and the eye)of different treatment methods of transparent crystal was analyzed.

RESULTS: Retaining transparent crystal group, 14 eyes visual acuity were improved to 93%; Extracting transparent crystal group, 18 eyes visual acuity were improved to 95%. Retaining transparent crystal group, 1 eye endophthalmitis failed to control to 7%; Extracting transparent crystal group, 1 eye endophthalmitis failed to control to 5%. There's no significant difference between the two groups(P>0.05). During the follow-up period, both groups had no recurrence of endophthalmitis.

CONCLUSION: There's no significant difference of clinical efficacy in infectious endophthalmitis vitrectomy between retention and removal of transparent crystal.