Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

ENTEROBACTER ENDOPHTHALMITIS

Clinicomicrobiologic Profile and Outcomes
Authors: Avinash, Pathengay; Hemant S, Trehan; Annie, Mathai; Subhadra, Jalali; Ajit B, Majji; Manmath K, Das; Savitri, Sharma; +1 Authors

ENTEROBACTER ENDOPHTHALMITIS

Abstract

To report the clinical presentations, antibiotic sensitivities, management, and outcomes of Enterobacter endophthalmitis.This is a retrospective, consecutive, noncomparative, interventional case series. The medical records of culture-proven Enterobacter endophthalmitis cases from the endophthalmitis registry between January 1995 and March 2006 were reviewed.Enterobacter was the causative agent in 36 culture-proven cases. The causative event was cataract surgery in 11 and trauma in 25 patients. The presenting visual acuity was light perception in 26 eyes (72.2%). Polymicrobial infection was detected in 7 patients (19.4%). Enterobacter organisms were most sensitive to ciprofloxacin (n = 34; 94%), followed by amikacin (n = 31; 86%) and ceftazidime (n = 28; 78%). In postoperative endophthalmitis, final visual outcome of ≥20/200 was achieved in 3 patients (27%) and of ≥5/200 in 5 patients (45%). The eyes became phthisical in 3 patients (27%) and evisceration was carried out in 1 patient. In posttraumatic endophthalmitis, final visual outcome of ≥20/200 was achieved in 5 patients (20%) and of ≥5/200 in 7 patients (28%). The eyes of 11 patients (44%) became phthisical and evisceration was carried out in 1 patient.Enterobacter organisms are mostly susceptible to ciprofloxacin, amikacin, and ceftazidime. Despite this coverage, the visual outcome is often poor.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Male, Endophthalmitis, Adolescent, Coinfection, Enterobacteriaceae Infections, Visual Acuity, Cataract Extraction, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Middle Aged, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Young Adult, Enterobacteriaceae, Child, Preschool, Visual Perception, Humans, Female, Child, Aged, Retrospective Studies

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    11
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
11
Top 10%
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!