The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Nosocomial acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis survey
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the incidence of acute-onset (within 6 weeks after surgery) postoperative endophthalmitis and to assess the visual acuity outcomes after treatment over a 10-year period at one institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study reviews all surgical cases performed between January 1, 1984 and December 30, 1994 at the Anne Bates Leach Eye Hospital, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Medical Center, for the occurrence of nosocomial acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis. RESULTS: The overall 10-year incidence of acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis after intraocular surgery was 0.093% (54/58, 123). The incidences of culture-proven acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis by surgical category were as follows: cataract surgery with or without intraocular lens (IOL) (0.082%, 34/41, 654), pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) (0.046%, 3/6557), penetrating keratoplasty (0.178%, 5/2805), secondary IOL placement (0.366%, 5/1367), glaucoma surgeries (0.124%, 4/3233), combined trabeculectomy and cataract surgery (0.114%, 2/1743), and combined penetrating keratoplasty and cataract surgery (0.194%, 1/515). The median visual acuity after endophthalmitis treatment was 20/200. The median visual acuities after endophthalmitis treatment by procedure were as follows: cataract surgery with or without IOL (20/133), PPV (no light perception), penetrating keratoplasty (2/200), secondary IOL implantation (20/40), glaucoma surgery (20/80), and combined trabeculectomy and cataract surgery with or without IOL (20/150). CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of endophthalmitis after intraocular surgery was 0.093%. The incidence of endophthalmitis was higher after secondary IOL implantation than after cataract extraction (P = 0.008, Fisher's exact test). After treatment, the visual acuity outcomes were worse in the patients who developed endophthalmitis after PPV than after cataract extraction, glaucoma procedures, or secondary IOL implantation (P < 0.05, analysis of variance, Duncan's multiple range test). Acuity outcomes after treatment of endophthalmitis were better among the patients with secondary IOL implantation than after penetrating keratoplasty or PPV (P < 0.05, analysis of variance, Duncan's multiple range test). The results of this 10-year review from a large teaching center may serve as a source of comparison for other centers and future studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Cost-Effectiveness of Various Interventions for Newly Diagnosed Diabetic Macular Edema
Stein, J. D., Newman-Casey, P. A., Kim, D. D., Nwanyanwu, K. H., Johnson, M. W., & Hutton, D. W. (2013) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.02.002 · Cited by 65
Metadata
- Authors
- Aaberg, T. M., Flynn, H. W., Schiffman, J., & Newton, J.
- Venue
- Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1998-06
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1004-1010
- ISSN
- 0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2026593223
- Cited by
- 445
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nosocomial acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0161-6420(98)96000-6
- The paper
- Aaberg, T. M., Flynn, H. W., Schiffman, J., & Newton, J. (1998). Nosocomial acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis survey. Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(98)96000-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.