ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2026
Management of Acute-Onset Exogenous Endophthalmitis in French University Hospitals: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to describe current management practices for acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis in French university hospitals and to compare visual outcomes between vitrectomy plus intravitreal injections of antibiotics (IVI) and IVI alone.
methodsThis retrospective multicenter study conducted between January 2021 and July 2024 across seven French hospital centers, included 264 patients using CIM-10 diagnostic codes (H44.0, H44.1, H45.1). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was converted to logMAR. The primary outcome was the change in BCVA at 6 months ± 2 months.
resultsThe mean age was 77.5 ± 11.1 years, and the female-to-male ratio was 157:107. Endophthalmitis occurred following intravitreal injection in 129 patients (48.9%), phacoemulsification in 99 (37.5%), and vitreoretinal surgery in 21 (7.9%). The remaining 15 patients (5.7%) had other forms of endophthalmitis. Mean baseline BCVA was 1.9 logMAR. Among 154 patients with complete follow-up, 108 received IVI alone (IVI alone group) and 46 vitrectomy plus IVI (vitrectomy plus IVI group). Univariate analysis showed no significant difference in BCVA change (P > 0.05) between the two groups. However, on multivariate analysis, vitrectomy plus IVI group showed worse visual recovery compared with IVI alone group (β = + 0.68, P = 0.003). Repeated IVI did not improve outcome compared with IVI injections performed once (P > 0.05). The overall microbiological positivity rate was 29.7% (71/239), with Gram-positive cocci accounting for most cases. Staphylococcus epidermidis was associated with better visual recovery than other organisms in this unadjusted, exploratory comparison (P = 0.03). Systemic antibiotic regimens varied considerably across centers.
conclusionsThe present retrospective study showed better 6-month visual recovery in acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis treated by IVI alone compared with vitrectomy plus IVI, although this finding was confined to the post hoc multivariable analysis and needs prospective confirmation before affirming that IVI alone is sufficient as first-line therapy in acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42911533What 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.