白内障手术的围手术期预防模式:澳大利亚眼科医生的调查。

N Morlet, B Gatus, M Coroneo
{"title":"白内障手术的围手术期预防模式:澳大利亚眼科医生的调查。","authors":"N Morlet,&nbsp;B Gatus,&nbsp;M Coroneo","doi":"10.1046/j.1440-1606.1998.00072.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although peri-operative prophylaxis to prevent endophthalmitis is commonly practised by ophthalmologists, no one method has clearly been demonstrated to be more effective than another. We surveyed 570 Fellows of the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists to determine what their methods of prophylaxis were and whether these differed for patients who developed endophthalmitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The questionnaire asked about the types of antibiotics and other methods of prophylaxis used before, during and after cataract surgery. Of those who reported cases of endophthalmitis, we asked specifically about the methods of prophylaxis used for those patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response was 89% and the incidence of endophthalmitis was calculated as 0.11%. There was little difference in the methods of prophylaxis used by those who reported endophthalmitis compared with others, but pre-operative antibiotics were used more commonly by those who reported the disease (P = 0.06). Surgeons who had practised for 20 years or more reported a lower rate of endophthalmitis than others, as did those who performed more than 300 cataract operations per year. However the pattern of prophylaxis used by these two sub-groups was quite divergent. Differences in the methods of prophylaxis had no bearing on the development of endophthalmitis, with the exception that subconjunctival antibiotics were used less often in those patients who developed the disease (P = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of the present study provide no clear answer regarding appropriate peri-operative prophylaxis. The wide range of prophylactic regimens used suggests that no one method is superior to another. Formal case-controlled studies are required to identify which method would be most efficacious.</p>","PeriodicalId":8596,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand journal of ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patterns of peri-operative prophylaxis for cataract surgery: a survey of Australian ophthalmologists.\",\"authors\":\"N Morlet,&nbsp;B Gatus,&nbsp;M Coroneo\",\"doi\":\"10.1046/j.1440-1606.1998.00072.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although peri-operative prophylaxis to prevent endophthalmitis is commonly practised by ophthalmologists, no one method has clearly been demonstrated to be more effective than another. We surveyed 570 Fellows of the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists to determine what their methods of prophylaxis were and whether these differed for patients who developed endophthalmitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The questionnaire asked about the types of antibiotics and other methods of prophylaxis used before, during and after cataract surgery. Of those who reported cases of endophthalmitis, we asked specifically about the methods of prophylaxis used for those patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response was 89% and the incidence of endophthalmitis was calculated as 0.11%. There was little difference in the methods of prophylaxis used by those who reported endophthalmitis compared with others, but pre-operative antibiotics were used more commonly by those who reported the disease (P = 0.06). Surgeons who had practised for 20 years or more reported a lower rate of endophthalmitis than others, as did those who performed more than 300 cataract operations per year. However the pattern of prophylaxis used by these two sub-groups was quite divergent. Differences in the methods of prophylaxis had no bearing on the development of endophthalmitis, with the exception that subconjunctival antibiotics were used less often in those patients who developed the disease (P = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of the present study provide no clear answer regarding appropriate peri-operative prophylaxis. The wide range of prophylactic regimens used suggests that no one method is superior to another. Formal case-controlled studies are required to identify which method would be most efficacious.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8596,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian and New Zealand journal of ophthalmology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1998-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian and New Zealand journal of ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1606.1998.00072.x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian and New Zealand journal of ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1606.1998.00072.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:虽然围手术期预防眼内炎被眼科医生普遍采用,但没有一种方法被明确证明比另一种方法更有效。我们调查了澳大利亚皇家眼科学院的570名研究员,以确定他们的预防方法是什么,以及这些方法对患眼内炎的患者是否有所不同。方法:通过问卷调查了解白内障术前、术中、术后使用抗生素的种类及其他预防方法。对于那些报告眼内炎的病例,我们特别询问了这些患者使用的预防方法。结果:有效率89%,眼内炎发生率0.11%。报告眼内炎的患者与其他患者的预防方法差异不大,但报告眼内炎的患者术前使用抗生素的频率更高(P = 0.06)。据报道,从业20年或以上的外科医生患眼内炎的几率低于其他人,每年进行300次以上白内障手术的外科医生也是如此。然而,这两个亚组使用的预防模式是相当不同的。预防方法的差异对眼内炎的发展没有影响,除了结膜下抗生素的使用在发生疾病的患者中较少(P = 0.03)。结论:本研究的结果没有提供关于围手术期适当预防的明确答案。广泛使用的预防方案表明,没有一种方法优于另一种。需要进行正式的病例对照研究,以确定哪种方法最有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Patterns of peri-operative prophylaxis for cataract surgery: a survey of Australian ophthalmologists.

Background: Although peri-operative prophylaxis to prevent endophthalmitis is commonly practised by ophthalmologists, no one method has clearly been demonstrated to be more effective than another. We surveyed 570 Fellows of the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists to determine what their methods of prophylaxis were and whether these differed for patients who developed endophthalmitis.

Methods: The questionnaire asked about the types of antibiotics and other methods of prophylaxis used before, during and after cataract surgery. Of those who reported cases of endophthalmitis, we asked specifically about the methods of prophylaxis used for those patients.

Results: The response was 89% and the incidence of endophthalmitis was calculated as 0.11%. There was little difference in the methods of prophylaxis used by those who reported endophthalmitis compared with others, but pre-operative antibiotics were used more commonly by those who reported the disease (P = 0.06). Surgeons who had practised for 20 years or more reported a lower rate of endophthalmitis than others, as did those who performed more than 300 cataract operations per year. However the pattern of prophylaxis used by these two sub-groups was quite divergent. Differences in the methods of prophylaxis had no bearing on the development of endophthalmitis, with the exception that subconjunctival antibiotics were used less often in those patients who developed the disease (P = 0.03).

Conclusions: The results of the present study provide no clear answer regarding appropriate peri-operative prophylaxis. The wide range of prophylactic regimens used suggests that no one method is superior to another. Formal case-controlled studies are required to identify which method would be most efficacious.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Acrysof intraocular lens implant. The need for clinical research. Cataract, cost: curious questions. Cytomegalovirus retinitis in transition. Congenital blocked tear ducts: avoidance of probing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1