Incidence of postoperative endophthalmitis after immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine a best estimate of the incidence of endophthalmitis after immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) and assess the benefit of prophylactic intracameral antibiotics. SETTING: Eye Foundation of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. DESIGN: Cohort study. METHODS: A detailed literature search was performed to obtain recently reported frequencies of postoperative endophthalmitis with or without the use of prophylactic intracameral antibiotics. Members of the International Society of Bilateral Cataract Surgeons were surveyed. The data were collected to determine the results of unilateral and bilateral cataract surgeries performed by experienced bilateral cataract surgeons. The data were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: In recently published European prophylactic intracameral cephalosporin studies, the incidence of postoperative endophthalmitis after unilateral cataract surgery weight-averaged to 1 in 331 (0.3%) without prophylactic intracameral antibiotics and to 1 in 1977 (0.05%) with prophylactic intracameral antibiotics, whereas studies in the United States using only topical antibiotics reported infection rates as low as 0.028%. Four cases of bilateral simultaneous endophthalmitis after ISBCS have been reported in the past 60 years, all with breaches of aseptic protocol. No bilateral simultaneous endophthalmitis occurred in the 95 606 ISBCS cases collected. The overall rate of postoperative endophthalmitis after ISBCS was 1 in 5759. Infection rates were significantly reduced with intracameral antibiotics to 1 in 14 352 cases. CONCLUSIONS: The risk for postoperative endophthalmitis in ISBCS appears to be at least as low as and possibly lower than published rates for unilateral surgery, particularly when recommended precautions are taken. Intracameral antibiotics significantly reduced the risk for postoperative endophthalmitis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".