4.5 Article

Nosocomial acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis at a university teaching hospital in China

Journal

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION
Volume 79, Issue 4, Pages 323-327

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2011.07.009

Keywords

Postoperative endophthalmitis; Incidence; Micro-organisms; Prophylaxis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A retrospective study of all intra-ocular operations performed at Zhongshan Ophthalmic Centre, China between 1 January 2000 and 30 December 2009 was conducted to gain further knowledge about nosocomial acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis. In total, 147,244 intra-ocular operations were performed during this period. Acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis was diagnosed in 29 cases, giving a frequency of 0.020%. The frequency remained low and did not increase over the 10-year period. The highest rate of endophthalmitis was found following secondary intra-ocular lens implantation (0.129%). Cataract surgery had a rate of 0.01%, which is on the lower end of estimates from other large-scale studies. Gram-positive bacteria were the most commonly isolated organisms (71%), with the majority being Staphylococcus epidermidis (64%). However, no S. epidermidis was identified in the cases following cataract extraction; these patients received intracameral vancomycin at the end of the procedure. Visual outcomes of patients with postoperative endophthalmitis were generally poor. Three (10%) patients had visual acuity (VA) >= 20/40 at the final follow-up visit (all had undergone cataract surgery) and 15 (52%) patients had VA <= 20/400 at the final follow-up visit (10 had undergone pars plana vitrectomy). Factors associated with poor visual outcomes included initial VA of hand motions or worse, and positive culture results. The results of this 10-year study may serve as a source of comparison for other centres and future studies. (C) 2011 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available