Mats Lundström1, Emma Friling1, Per Montan2. 1. From the Department of Clinical Sciences (Lundström), Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; St Erik Eye Hospital (Friling, Montan), Stockholm, Sweden. 2. From the Department of Clinical Sciences (Lundström), Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; St Erik Eye Hospital (Friling, Montan), Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: per.montan@sankterik.se.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate visual outcome, bacteriology, and time to diagnosis in groups identified as being at risk for endophthalmitis following cataract surgery. SETTING: Swedish National Cataract Register. DESIGN: A retrospective review of postoperative endophthalmitis and control cases reported from 2002 to 2010. METHODS: Three identified risk groups for endophthalmitis confirmed in previous multivariate models were organized in such a way that the highest level of significance determined the allocation of cases that belonged to more than one group. Control cases of the entire database were arranged in the same manner. RESULTS: Of the 244 endophthalmitis cases occurring in 692 786 surgeries, 148 did not belong to any risk group, whereas the remaining cases were part of the following groups at risk: nontreatment with intracameral antibiotic (n = 22), communication with vitreous (n = 18), and age 85 years or more (n = 56). Cefuroxime was the intracameral antibiotic used in 99% of treated cases. Cases sustaining a communication with vitreous were found to have the worst visual prognosis. Among causative organisms, Gram-positive bacteria were significantly more frequent in cases with a communication with vitreous, whereas staphylococci and Gram-negative results were more common in patients aged 85 years or more than in nonrisk patients. CONCLUSION: Limiting the size of the risk groups by giving a prophylactic intracameral antibiotic to every single patient and by intervening earlier in the course of cataract development appear to be first steps in further reducing the endophthalmitis rate. Adjustments of the intracameral regimen may be advantageous in some risk groups. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: None of the authors has any financial or propriety interest in any material or method mentioned.
PURPOSE: To investigate visual outcome, bacteriology, and time to diagnosis in groups identified as being at risk for endophthalmitis following cataract surgery. SETTING: Swedish National Cataract Register. DESIGN: A retrospective review of postoperative endophthalmitis and control cases reported from 2002 to 2010. METHODS: Three identified risk groups for endophthalmitis confirmed in previous multivariate models were organized in such a way that the highest level of significance determined the allocation of cases that belonged to more than one group. Control cases of the entire database were arranged in the same manner. RESULTS: Of the 244 endophthalmitis cases occurring in 692 786 surgeries, 148 did not belong to any risk group, whereas the remaining cases were part of the following groups at risk: nontreatment with intracameral antibiotic (n = 22), communication with vitreous (n = 18), and age 85 years or more (n = 56). Cefuroxime was the intracameral antibiotic used in 99% of treated cases. Cases sustaining a communication with vitreous were found to have the worst visual prognosis. Among causative organisms, Gram-positive bacteria were significantly more frequent in cases with a communication with vitreous, whereas staphylococci and Gram-negative results were more common in patients aged 85 years or more than in nonrisk patients. CONCLUSION: Limiting the size of the risk groups by giving a prophylactic intracameral antibiotic to every single patient and by intervening earlier in the course of cataract development appear to be first steps in further reducing the endophthalmitis rate. Adjustments of the intracameral regimen may be advantageous in some risk groups. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: None of the authors has any financial or propriety interest in any material or method mentioned.
Authors: Randy C Bowen; Andrew Xingyu Zhou; Sailaja Bondalapati; Thomas W Lawyer; Karisa B Snow; Patrick R Evans; Tyler Bardsley; Mary McFarland; Matthew Kliethermes; Dallas Shi; Christina A Mamalis; Tom Greene; Christopher J Rudnisky; Balamurali Krishna Ambati Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Maziar Mohammadi; Kisha Patel; Seyedeh P Alaie; Ron B Shmueli; Cagri G Besirli; Ronald G Larson; Jordan J Green Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2018-04-21 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: Jiyeun Kate Kim; Ki Yup Nam; In Young Chung; Woo Jin Jeung; Yoon Hyung Kwon; Jung Min Park; Yong Seop Han; Ji Eun Lee; Ik Soo Byon; Sung Hu Park; Hyun Wong Kim; Kang Yun Park; Hee Sung Yoon; Indal Park; Han Woo Kim; Sang Joon Lee Journal: Emerg Microbes Infect Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 7.163