AimTo compare the incidences of endophthalmitis after cataract operations before and after introduction of intracameral vancomycin at the end of surgery.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed of presumed infectious endophthalmitis after cataract surgery from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2008. From January 2001, the practice of using intracameral vancomycin at the end of cataract surgery was introduced. The period before introduction of intracameral vancomycin is considered as period A and that after as period B. The incidences of presumed or culture-proven endophthalmitis during periods A and B were compared.ResultsA total of 16,606 cataract surgeries were performed during the study period. The incidence of endophthalmitis per 1000 cataract surgeries was 3.0 during period A and 0.08 during period B. This reduction was statistically significantly (Chi-squared test 36.6, P value < 0.0001). The relative risk of developing endophthalmitis without intracameral vancomycin prophylaxis was 38. The absolute risk reduction was 292 cases of endophthalmitis per 100,000 cataract surgeries.ConclusionsIntracameral vancomycin significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. There is a universal need to adopt this mode of microbial prophylaxis to reduce the burden of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery.

Purpose To compare (a) the clinical effectiveness and (b) cost effectiveness of the two models in screening for diabetic retinopathy. Methods (a) Retrospective analysis of referral diagnoses of each screening model in their first respective years of operation and an audit of screen positive patients and a sample of screen negatives referred to the hospital eye service from both screening programmes. (b) Cost effectiveness study. Participants (1) A total of 1643 patients screened in the community and in digital photography clinics; (2) 109 consecutive patients referred to the Diabetic Eye Clinic through the two existing models of diabetic retinopathy screening; (3) 55 screen negative patients from the optometry model; (4) 68 screen negative patients audited from the digital photography model. Results The compliance rate was 45% for optometry (O) vs 50% for the digital imaging system (I). Background retinopathy was recorded at screening in 22% (O) vs 17% (I) (P ¼ 0.03) and maculopathy in 3.8% (O) vs 1.7% (I) (P ¼ 0.02). Hospital referral rates were 3.8% (O) vs 4.2% (I) Sensitivity (75% for optometry, 80% for digital photography) and specificity (98% for optometry and digital photography) were similar in both models. The cost of screening each patient was d23.99 (O) vs d29.29 (I). The cost effectiveness was d832 (O) vs d853(I) in the first year. Conclusion The imaging system was not always able to detect early retinopathy and maculopathy; it was equally specific in identifying sight-threatening disease. Cost effectiveness was poor in both models, in their first operational year largely as a result of poor compliance rates in the newly introduced screening programme. Cost effectiveness of the imaging model should further improve with falling costs of imaging systems. Until then, it is essential to continue any existing well-coordinated optometry model.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract