Evidence Hub

Incidence of post-traumatic endophthalmitis following repaired open globe injury: impact of prophylactic intracameral moxifloxacin

Mohamed-Noriega K, Hernández-Moreno AJ, Morales-Wong F, Mohamed-Noriega J, González-Cortés JH, Villarreal-Mendez G, Mohamed-Hamsho J

Eye (London, England), 2026

424 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of intracameral moxifloxacin (ICM) after repaired open globe injury (OGI) in reducing the incidence of post-traumatic endophthalmitis.

SUBJECTS/METHODS: Ambispective, consecutive, comparative study of patients operated of OGI repair. Patients were divided into two groups: those without intracameral antibiotic prophylaxis (No-ICM) (operated between 2002 and 2012) and those with ICM prophylaxis at the end of the procedure (ICM) (operated between 2013 and 2023). Both received standard povidone-iodine antisepsis. Endophthalmitis was defined as severe intraocular inflammation associated with hypopyon and/or vitritis.

RESULTS: 424 eyes (424 patients) were included, 294 in ICM group and 130 in No-ICM group. Male sex was 85.7% and 90.8% in ICM and No-ICM groups, respectively. The ICM group was significantly older than No-ICM group (median (IQR): 26 (14-41) vs. 21.5 (12-34), p = 0.025). The proportion of patients younger than 18 years was similar between ICM and No-ICM group (33.1% vs. 38.5%, p = 0.275). Post-traumatic endophthalmitis was significantly lower in ICM (2/294, 0.7%) compared to No-ICM (5/130, 3.9%) (p = 0.031) group. Sensitivity analysis age-adjusted confirmed the protective effect of ICM for endophthalmitis after OGI was independent of age (adjusted OR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.04-0.86; p = 0.031). The relative risk of endophthalmitis with ICM compared with no-ICM was 0.18 (0.04-0.78), with relative risk reduction of 82%, absolute risk…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 424 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free