Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Microbiology and visual outcomes of culture-positive bacterial endophthalmitis in Oxford, UK.

PURPOSE: To review the microbiology of culture-positive cases of bacterial endophthalmitis, and to correlate this with visual outcomes.

METHOD: Case notes were reviewed for culture-positive cases of bacterial endophthalmitis over a period from November 1999 to June 2012. Cases were identified retrospectively using a local database. The Fisher exact test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS: Of the 47 cases of culture-positive bacterial endophthalmitis identified, 81 % occurred postoperatively, 11 % followed intravitreal injection, 6 % had an endogenous source and 2 % followed ocular trauma. Eighty-seven percent of bacteria cultured were Gram-positive. The most commonly identified organisms were coagulase-negative Staphylococci (47 %) and Streptococcus spp. (30 %). Patients were treated with intravitreal vancomycin and either amikacin or ceftazidime. All Gram-negative isolates were sensitive to aminoglycosides and ceftazidime, and all Gram-positive isolates were vancomycin-sensitive. Final visual acuity (VA) was 6/12 or better in 41 % of cases and counting fingers (CF) or worse in 30 %. Endophthalmitis caused by Streptococcus spp. was associated with a poorer final VA (OR for CF or worse = 14.9, P < 0.01). Cases caused by coagulase-negative Staphylococci had a better visual outcome (OR for VA of 6/12 or better = 5.7, P = 0.013). Five eyes were eviscerated or enucleated. Infection with Haemophilus influenzae was strongly associated with this outcome (OR = 57, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION: Over the time period of this study there was no evidence of emerging resistance to empirical antibiotics which are commonly used for the treatment of bacterial endophthalmitis. Infection with coagulase-negative Staphylococci was associated with a good visual outcome, whilst infection with Streptococcus spp. or Haemophilus influenzae was associated with a poor visual outcome.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app