ArticleInfection2026
Microbiological etiology of endogenous and exogenous postprocedural endophthalmitis: a 5-year German federal state study.
Article in Infection, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the microbiological etiology of endogenous and exogenous postprocedural infectious endophthalmitis in patients referred to two tertiary eye care centers in the German federal state of Saarland over a five-year period (2019-2023).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed all cases of endophthalmitis treated at two ophthalmological centers in southwest Germany between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2023. Included were only those cases for which vitreous aspirate specimens were subjected to microbiological analysis. Cases of exogenous endophthalmitis secondary to other ocular or periocular infections (e.g., microbial keratitis) or trauma were excluded. Microbiological pathogen identification was performed using Gram stain microscopy, conventional bacterial and fungal cultures, as well as broad-range bacterial and fungal polymerase chain reaction (PCR), followed by sequencing in PCR-positive samples.
resultsA total of 126 endophthalmitis vitreous aspirate samples from 126 patients with a mean age of 73.3 ± 11.4 years were included. The majority of endophthalmitis cases occurred after intravitreal injection (55.6%), followed by previous cataract surgery (23.8%), pars plana vitrectomy (5.6%), and glaucoma surgery (4.8%). Only 7.9% of all cases were endogenous. Overall, pathogens were identified in 58.7% (n = 74) of all cases, with culture yielding a higher detection rate compared to PCR (53.2% versus 43.5%). Staphylococcus epidermidis was most commonly detected (n = 43; 58.1%), followed by Staphylococcus aureus (n = 7; 9.5%) and Enterococcus faecalis (n = 5; 6.8%). Postinjection and postcataract endophthalmitis tended to be associated with positive bacterial culture results, whereas endogenous endophthalmitis was more frequently associated with negative bacterial culture results (p = 0.06). Fungal endophthalmitis was detected in three samples, of which the endogenous cases were caused by Candida albicans (n = 2). Bacterial multidrug resistance was rare, with only a single detected methicillin-resistant S. aureus strain. All Gram-positive bacteria were susceptible to vancomycin.
conclusionOur results confirm S. epidermidis to be the most common endophthalmitis-causing pathogen. No single microbiological diagnostic technique would have identified all cases of infection, thus calling for combined approaches that include culture and molecular testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.