Postoperative endophthalmitis is one of the most serious potential complications of ocular lens surgery. Its incidence can be reduced by means of antibiotic prophylaxis. Although the prophylactic use of intracameral cefuroxime has been extended, other drugs, such as moxifloxacin, have arisen as alternatives. We performed a systematic literature review on the effectiveness and efficiency of intracameral cefuroxime and moxifloxacin for the prophylaxis of postoperative endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. Several bibliographic databases were searched up to October 2010 and were updated up to January 2013. Outcomes were the onset of endophthalmitis after surgery and the cost-effectiveness ratio of using both antibiotic prophylaxis alternatives. The following were included: a clinical trial reported in two papers, six observational studies, and an economic evaluation. All studies assessed cefuroxime compared with another antibiotic prophylaxis or no prophylaxis. The only randomized controlled trial performed by the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery found that intracameral cefuroxime is significantly more effective than not using prophylaxis or the use of a topical antibiotic. The observational studies support these results. The economic evaluation compared different prophylaxis regimens and concluded that intracameral cefuroxime showed the best cost-effectiveness ratio. Both the observational studies and the economic evaluation have methodological limits that reduce their validity. This review confirmed that cefuroxime can prevent endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. Further randomized controlled trials, with large sample sizes, are required to compare different antibiotic prophylaxis regimens.

PurposeTo evaluate macular vasculature in diabetic retinopathy (DR) with optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) and to correlate vessel density (VD) with retinal sensitivity (RS) as a way to assess structural and functional findings in DR.DesignProspective observational cross-sectional study.MethodsDiabetic patients with DR but no clinically significant diabetic macular edema (DME) and healthy subjects were included in this study. All of them underwent comprehensive ophthalmic examination, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), OCTA with RS-3000 Advance AngioScan (Nidek, Gamagori, Japan) and microperimetry with MP-3 (Nidek, Gamagori, Japan). Retinal vascular density measured by OCT angiography in 9 areas was correlated with RS in the same 9 areas by Spearman correlation.ResultsIn this study, 50 subjects were enrolled: 25 eyes of diabetic patients with DR and 25 eyes of non-diabetic subjects. Diabetic patients mean age was 51.88±13.62 years; non-diabetic subjects were 43.48±13.42 years. The BCVA was 20/25 in the diabetic group and 20/20 in the non-diabetic group. Mean RS was decreased in the DR group (27.68±2.71 dB) compared to the non-diabetic group (31.68±1.46 dB) (p<0.05) and in the 9 studied areas (p<0.05). Mean VD was decreased in the DR group compared to non-diabetics (p<0.05) and in 7 of the 9 areas (except temporal superior and inferior squares) (p<0.05). Correlations by areas between VD and RS were assessed, we found moderate correlation in the area temporal to the fovea (r=0.501, p=0.01) in the DR group but not in the non-diabetic subjects. There were no other statistical significant correlations with this pattern.ConclusionDR without DME results in a retinal VD decreased that might be the cause of a reduction of RS in one of the studied areas. Microangiopathic changes are correlated with microperimetry sensitivity drop in the temporal to the fovea grid but not in the other studied grids.

Purpose: Diabetic macular edema is the main cause of blindness in diabetic patients. Vascular endothelial growth factor is involved in diabetic macular edema pathogenesis. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors are an important option in diabetic macular edema therapy. This survey investigates actual clinical practice in diabetic macular edema in Spain. Methods: An expert advisory panel of 17 Spanish ophthalmologists developed a 30-item anonymous questionnaire about diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up in diabetic macular edema. A total of 137 ophthalmologists from 10 Spanish regions completed the questionnaire online. Results: Almost all of the respondents (99.3%) record the measured visual acuity and perform biomicroscopic anterior (94.9%) and posterior (91.2%) segment examinations. Similarly, 100% of responding ophthalmologists always/almost always or frequently perform optical coherence tomography. Most respondents (65%) always/almost always or frequently perform a retinography. More than 50% rarely perform fluorescein angiography. Nearly, all (96.4%) of the specialists responded that, in center-involved diabetic macular edema, the first treatment is an anti–vascular endothelial growth factor drug. For corticosteroids, the first choice of most respondents (91.2%) was the dexamethasone implant. In the follow-up, almost all (96.4%) specialists record the measured visual acuity and most also perform biomicroscopic anterior (82.5%) and posterior (83.2%) segment examination. Conclusion: This survey shows the actual clinical practice in diabetic macular edema in Spain, finding that anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy is frequently used, and that diagnosis, treatments, and follow-up examinations used by specialists are homogeneous and according to diabetic macular edema guidelines.

No abstract

No abstract