Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 3829
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2010  |  Volume : 58  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 562

Incidence of post-cataract endophthalmitis at Aravind Eye Hospital


1 International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, U.K.
2 L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India

Date of Web Publication16-Oct-2010

Correspondence Address:
Rohit C Khanna
L V Prasad Eye Institute, Kallam Anji Reddy Campus, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, India

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.71704

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Khanna RC, Garudadri C. Incidence of post-cataract endophthalmitis at Aravind Eye Hospital. Indian J Ophthalmol 2010;58:562

How to cite this URL:
Khanna RC, Garudadri C. Incidence of post-cataract endophthalmitis at Aravind Eye Hospital. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2010 [cited 2020 Jun 4];58:562. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2010/58/6/562/71704

Dear Editor,

The recommendations for the practice patterns of cataract surgery in the recently published article by Ravindran et al.,[1] appear to offer huge benefits for cost control in cataract surgery. A similar report from the same group in the past was published and debated. [2],[3] Going by the Hippocratic oath of "above all do no harm", if the study methodology and reporting are flawed, these recommendations could potentially result in an increase in the incidence of the most dreaded complication of cataract surgery. Before we consider extrapolating these recommendations, a critical review of the study methodology and the results is mandatory.

The authors claim an endophthalmitis rate of 0.09% in a series of 42,426 patients. It looks like they have included as endophthalmitis only those patients who had an intervention in their retina service. While the protocols for operating room procedures and the experience of the surgeons are reported in detail, equal rigor for postoperative evaluation is absent. In the absence of an accepted definition of endophthalmitis and information about how many of the full time surgeons (FTS) or surgeons in training (SIT) actually evaluated these patients in the postoperative period, along with possible audit or quality control of these evaluations, it is difficult to rely on the reported endophthalmitis rate.

The authors claim that endophthalmitis is more common in manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS); one could argue from the data that endophthalmitis is more common in the charity patients. Prevalence of endophthalmitis is 3 / 12022 (0.02) in private and 35 / 30404 (0.12) in charity (P= 0.0039). The huge loss to follow-up in the charity patients could have led to under-reporting of endophthalmitis. Nearly, one out of every six (16%) of the charity patients are lost to follow-up.

The authors make a presumption that cases that develop complications would come back to their hospital, however, this presumption is not tenable, for two possible reasons. Firstly 75% of the charity patients are outstation patients. The cost of surgery for the outstation patient even in charity (transportation, cost of intraocular lens, cost of attendant travel etc.) is significant. The average poor, old, dependent, rural Indian patient is more likely to resign from seeking further care and attribute the non-recovery of vision to his "Karma". Secondly, on a purely scientific basis one would need to consider the worst case scenario which will increase the endophthalmitis rate to 13.3%.

Lack of rigor in data collection and analysis is also reflected in the fact that the study period includes patients operated from January 2007 to August 2008, with minimum three months follow-up, the last follow-up should then have been on 30 November, 2008. However, the paper was ready before that and was submitted for publication on 28 November, 2008.

Going by their own data that Nocardia is the predominant cause of endophthalmitis, and the source for this organism being soil, the protocol of allowing patients with street clothes etc. might have contributed to the contamination by Nocardia through street clothes and feet of patients and staff.

In summary, we recommend that changing the practice patterns for cataract surgery based on this data, is not appropriate.

 
  References Top

1.
Ravindran RD, Venkatesh R, Chang DF, Sengupta S, Gyatsho J, Talwar B. Incidence of post-cataract endophthalmitis at Aravind Eye Hospital: Outcomes of more than 42,000 consecutive cases using standardized sterilization and prophylaxis protocols. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:629-36.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
2.
Lalitha P, Rajagopalan J, Prakash K, Ramasamy K, Prajna NV, Srinivasan M. Postcataract endophthalmitis in South India incidence and outcome. Ophthalmology 2005;112:1884-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
3.
Nirmalan PK, Kenneth J, Thomas R. Postcataract endophthalmitis in South India. Ophthalmology 2006;113:2375-6.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  



This article has been cited by
1 Identification of Torque Teno Virus in Culture-Negative Endophthalmitis by Representational Deep DNA Sequencing
Aaron Y. Lee,Lakshmi Akileswaran,Michael D. Tibbetts,Sunir J. Garg,Russell N. Van Gelder
Ophthalmology. 2015; 122(3): 524
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1606    
    Printed40    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded227    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal