Dose and administration of intracameral moxifloxacin for prophylaxis of postoperative endophthalmitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review current and past practices of intracameral antibiotic administration for infection prophylaxis in cataract surgery; to review the benefits and liabilities of available prophylactic drugs, dosage determination, and administration protocols; and to devise an optimum dose and administration protocol for intracameral moxifloxacin. SETTING: Humber River Hospital and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. DESIGN: Retrospective evaluation of treatment modality. METHODS: This study consisted of a detailed review of the history, drugs, and methods of intracameral prophylaxis and microbiological and pharmacodynamics analysis of options. A review of potential drug sources and doses was performed and 1 drug, dose, and administration protocol was selected. The current method's adoption reasons are described followed by the authors' experience. RESULTS: A single infection in 3430 cases occurred with a moxifloxacin-resistant strain of Staphylococcus epidermidis when moxifloxacin 100 mcg in 0.1 mL was used. Increasing the dose and changing the administration technique resulted in no infections in 4601 cases and no detrimental side effects or complications. CONCLUSION: Intracameral moxifloxacin prepared by dilution of 3 cc moxifloxacin 0.5% (Vigamox) with 7 cc balanced salt solution and with the administration of 0.3 to 0.4 cc (450 to 600 mcg.) as the final step in cataract surgery via the side port after the main incision has been sealed and hydrated showed advantages over alternative intracameral antibiotic prophylactic methods, with minimum risk. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Neither author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".