4.7 Article

The impact of antibiotic prophylaxis with intracameral cefuroxime on postoperative infectious endophthalmitis rates in a high-volume cataract surgery center

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-45398-4

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to compare the rates of postoperative infectious endophthalmitis before and after the introduction of intracameral antibiotic prophylaxis with cefuroxime (ATB-P IC) in cataract surgery. The results showed a significantly lower rate of endophthalmitis in the group with ATB-P IC compared to the control group without the protocol.
Our purpose was to compare postoperative infectious endophthalmitis rates before and after the introduction of antibiotic prophylaxis via intracameral with cefuroxime (ATB-P IC) in a high-volume cataract surgery service. Retrospective cohort study considering patients who underwent cataract surgery at Ophthal Hospital Especializado, Sao Paulo, Brazil, from January/2011 to December/2019. Patients operated from 2013 to 2019 comprised the ATB-P IC group while those operated from 2011 to 2013 formed the control group without the ATB-P IC protocol. A total of 23,184 cataract surgeries were included, with 6,207 in the Control Group and 16,977 in the ATB-P Group. A significantly higher rate of endophthalmitis was observed in the control group (0.0967%) when compared to the ATB-P group (0.0177%) (p = 0.014). Surgeries performed with ATB-P showed 80% less chance of reported endophthalmitis (OR = 0.20; 95% CI 0.05-0.72; p = 0.014) than those without ATB-P. Of the six cases confirmed by culture in the control group, all tested positive for Pseudomonas aeroginosa and the only case confirmed by culture in the ATB-P group was positive for Staphylococcus epidermidis. Our findings strongly support the use of intracameral antibiotic prophylaxis with cefuroxime to reduce postoperative infectious endophthalmitis rates, and we recommend its incorporation into cataract surgery protocols.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据