Author/Authors :
Katibeh, Marzieh Ophthalmic Epidemiology Research Center - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , Ziaei, Hossein Ophthalmic Research Center - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , Mirzaei, Mahboobe Ophthalmic Research Center - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , Eskandari, Armen Ophthalmic Research Center - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , Moein, Hamidreza Ophthalmic Research Center - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , Kalantarion, Masumeh Ophthalmic Research Center - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , Javadi, Mohammadali Ophthalmic Research Center - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract :
Purpose: To describe prophylactic patterns employed against endophthalmitis after cataract surgery in
Iran.
Methods: This cross-sectional study included 486 ophthalmologists filling in a self‑administered
questionnaire during the 20th Annual Congress of the Iranian Society of Ophthalmology in December 2010,
Tehran, working in both private and academic medical centers. Prophylactic measures used preoperatively,
intraoperatively and postoperatively and self‑reported rates of endophthalmitis were assessed as the main
outcome measurements.
Results: In the preoperative phase, 75.5% of surgeons used povidone‑iodine in the conjunctival sac and
71.4% of them did not use antibiotics. The rate of intraoperative prophylaxis was 61.9% either in the form
of intracameral antibiotics or subconjunctival injection (mostly cephazolin or gentamicin). Only 7.8% of
participants used intracameral cephalosporins. Postoperative antibiotics [mostly chloramphenicol (57%)
and ciprofloxacin (28%)] were used by 94.2% of surgeons. On average, ten years of practice were required
to observe one case of endophthalmitis.
Conclusion: The surgeons in present setting used various prophylactic regimens against endophthalmitis
after cataract surgery. Setting a local and evidence‑based clinical practice guideline seems necessary.