PURPOSE: To investigate the management strategies, susceptibility patterns, and visual outcomes of postcataract Enterococcus faecalis endophthalmitis. METHODS: Retrospective chart review study of 26 eyes of 26 patients with culture-proven E. faecalis endophthalmitis. RESULTS: In initial treatments, pars plana vitrectomy with intravitreal antibiotics in 15 eyes (58%). Resistance patterns among the isolates were the following: vancomycin in 0 of 26 eyes (0%), ampicillin in 0 of 26 eyes (0%), teicoplanin in 0 of 18 eyes (0%), and high-level gentamicin (minimum inhibitory concentration > 500 mg/L) in 8 of 12 eyes (67%). Presenting visual acuity ranged from counting fingers to no light perception. Final visual acuity was better than 5/200 in 4 of 26 eyes (15%), 5/200 to hand motions in 4 of 26 eyes (15%), and light perception to no light perception in 18 of 26 eyes (69%). CONCLUSIONS: Although all E. faecalis isolates were susceptible to vancomycin, endophthalmitis caused by E. faecalis was usually associated with poor visual prognosis.
PURPOSE: To investigate the management strategies, susceptibility patterns, and visual outcomes of postcataract Enterococcus faecalis endophthalmitis. METHODS: Retrospective chart review study of 26 eyes of 26 patients with culture-proven E. faecalisendophthalmitis. RESULTS: In initial treatments, pars plana vitrectomy with intravitreal antibiotics in 15 eyes (58%). Resistance patterns among the isolates were the following: vancomycin in 0 of 26 eyes (0%), ampicillin in 0 of 26 eyes (0%), teicoplanin in 0 of 18 eyes (0%), and high-level gentamicin (minimum inhibitory concentration > 500 mg/L) in 8 of 12 eyes (67%). Presenting visual acuity ranged from counting fingers to no light perception. Final visual acuity was better than 5/200 in 4 of 26 eyes (15%), 5/200 to hand motions in 4 of 26 eyes (15%), and light perception to no light perception in 18 of 26 eyes (69%). CONCLUSIONS: Although all E. faecalis isolates were susceptible to vancomycin, endophthalmitis caused by E. faecalis was usually associated with poor visual prognosis.
Authors: Kimberly V Miller; Kari M Eisley; Robert M Q Shanks; Roni M Lahr; Kira L Lathrop; Regis P Kowalski; Robert J Noecker Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 3.351
Authors: H W Kim; S Y Kim; I Y Chung; Joo Eun Lee; Ji Eun Lee; Jung Min Park; Jong Moon Park; Y S Han; B S Oum; I S Byon; I H Yun; H S Yoon; D Park; W J Jeong; B C Yu; I Park; T Bae; K Y Nam; S J Lee Journal: Infection Date: 2013-09-26 Impact factor: 3.553
Authors: Ajay E Kuriyan; Jayanth Sridhar; Harry W Flynn; William E Smiddy; Thomas A Albini; Audina M Berrocal; Richard K Forster; Peter J Belin; Darlene Miller Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Yu Ti Teng; Mei Ching Teng; Hsi Kung Kuo; Po Chiung Fang; Pei Chang Wu; Chih Hsin Chen; Ming Tse Kuo; I Hui Yang; Yung Jen Chen Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Ki Yup Nam; Hyun Wong Kim; Woo Jin Jeung; Jung Min Park; Jong Moon Park; In Young Chung; Yong Seop Han; Bu Sup Oum; Ji Eun Lee; Ik Soo Byon; Il Han Yun; Joo Eun Lee; Hee Sung Yoon; Dong Park; Byeng Chul Yu; Sang Joon Lee Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2016-11-25 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Julio C Hernandez-Camarena; Victor M Bautista-de Lucio; Alejandro Navas; Arturo Ramirez-Miranda; Enrique O Graue-Hernandez Journal: Case Rep Ophthalmol Date: 2012-10-24