Clinical features and microbiology of post-cataract surgery endophthalmitis with and without intracameral moxifloxacin prophylaxis: Endophthalmitis prophylaxis study report 3

ABSTRACT

Purpose: This study aimed to analyze the clinical presentations, microbiology, and management outcomes of post–cataract surgery endophthalmitis, with and without intracameral moxifloxacin prophylaxis. Methods: This study was designed as a retrospective, consecutive, comparative case series. Records of consecutive cataract surgery from January 1, 2015, till June 30, 2020, were analyzed. The cases that developed endophthalmitis were analyzed. The endophthalmitis cases were divided by their prophylaxis treatment into two groups with intracameral moxifloxacin (ICM) and without (N?ICM). Inclusion criteria were (1) age ? 18 years, (2) cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation, (3) endophthalmitis within 6 weeks of cataract surgery, and (4) cataract surgery in the institute by any of the three methods—phacoemulsification, manual small incision cataract surgery, and extracapsular cataract extraction. Results: In the study period, 66,967 cataract surgeries were performed; 48.7% (n = 32,649) did not receive ICM. There was no difference between the N?ICM and ICM groups in the incidence of clinical (n = 21, 0.064% and n = 15, 0.043%; P = 0.23) and culture proven (n = 19, 0.033% and n = 11, 0.023%; P = 0.99) endophthalmitis, respectively. Greater number of patients in the N?ICM group had lid edema (76.2% vs. 40%; P = 0.03), corneal edema (71.4% vs. 33.3%; P = 0.03) and lower presenting vision with available correction (logMAR [logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution] 1.26 ± 1.2 vs. logMAR 0.54 ± 0.85; P = 0.02). The final best?corrected visual acuity following treatment was worse in the N?ICM group (logMAR 1.26 ± 1.2 vs. 0.54 ± 0.85; P = 0.02). Conclusion: Endophthalmitis after intracameral moxifloxacin may have relatively milder signs and symptoms and may respond better to treatment.