ABSTRACT
TOPIC: The timing of primary repair of open-globe injury is variable in major trauma centres around the world and there is a lack of consensus on optimal timing. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Surgery is the mainstay of open-globe injury management, and appropriate timing of surgical repair may minimise the risk of potentially blinding complications such as endophthalmitis, thereby optimising visual outcomes. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023442972). CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ISRCTN registry and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 29 October 2023. Prospective and retrospective non-randomised studies of patients with open-globe injury with a minimum of one month follow up after primary repair were included. Primary outcomes included visual acuity at last follow-up, and the proportion of patients who developed endophthalmitis. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies met inclusion criteria, reporting a total of 8497 eyes. The most common injury types were penetrating and intraocular foreign body (IOFB). Meta-analysis found that primary repair less than 24 hours after open-globe injury was associated with an odds of endophthalmitis of 0.30 compared to primary repair conducted more than 24 hours after trauma (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.19-0.79; I2 95%; p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in reported visual outcomes between patients whose open-globe injuries were repaired more than, compared to less than, 24 hours after trauma (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.61-1.29; I2 70%; p = 0.52). All included studies were retrospective and non-randomised, demonstrating an overall low certainty of evidence on GRADE assessment. CONCLUSION: Only retrospective data exist around the effect of timing of open-globe repair, causing low certainty of the available evidence. However, this review of the current body of evidence, predominantly including penetrating and IOFB injuries, suggests that primary repair performed less than 24 hours after open-globe injury was associated with a reduced endophthalmitis rate, compared to longer delays, consistent with delay to primary repair increasing endophthalmitis risk.
ABSTRACT
TOPIC: This study reports the effect of systemic prophylactic antibiotics (and their route) on the risk of endophthalmitis after open globe injury (OGI). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Endophthalmitis is a major complication of OGI; it can lead to rapid sight loss in the affected eye. The administration of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is common practice in some health care systems, although there is no consensus on their use. METHODS: PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Embase were searched. This was completed July 6, 2021 and updated December 10, 2022. We included randomized and nonrandomized prospective studies which reported the rate of post-OGI endophthalmitis when systemic preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (via the oral or IV route) was given. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and ROBINS-I tool were used for assessing the risk of bias. Where meta-analysis was performed, results were reported as an odds ratio. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021271271. RESULTS: Three studies were included. One prospective observational study compared outcomes of patients who had received systemic or no systemic preoperative antibiotics. The endophthalmitis rates reported were 3.75% and 4.91% in the systemic and no systemic preoperative antibiotics groups, a nonsignificant difference (P = 0.68). Two randomized controlled trials were included (1555 patients). The rates of endophthalmitis were 17 events in 751 patients (2.26%) and 17 events in 804 patients (2.11%) in the oral antibiotics and IV (± oral) antibiotics groups, respectively. Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences between groups (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-2.12). CONCLUSIONS: The incidences of endophthalmitis after OGI were low with and without systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, although high-risk cases were excluded in the included studies. When antibiotic prophylaxis is considered, there is moderate evidence that oral antibiotic administration is noninferior to IV. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.