Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of intracameral antibiotics in reducing postoperative endophthalmitis risk after cataract surgery: A meta-analysis

Hashem Abdulaziz Abu Serhan, Hamad A Alkorbi, Elhassan Mahmoud, Muhammad Zain Kaleem, Omar Abousaad, Mohamed Nasser Elshabrawi, Ibrahim M Alrawi, Abdulrahman Nasir Al Khatib et al.

AJO International, 2025

5,665,621 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Postoperative endophthalmitis is a rare but serious complication following cataract surgery, often leading to severe vision loss and increased healthcare burden. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of intracameral antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing the risk of postoperative endophthalmitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and EMBASE up to September 18, 2024. Studies were included if they compared intracameral antibiotic prophylaxis with no prophylaxis in patients undergoing cataract surgery. The primary outcome was the odds of developing postoperative endophthalmitis. Random-effects and quality-effects models were used for meta-analysis, with heterogeneity assessed via the I² statistic. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on antibiotic type, study design, and geographic region. A total of 25 studies involving 5665,621 participants were included. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for the risk of endophthalmitis with intracameral antibiotics was 0.31 (95 % CI: 0.15–0.61), indicating a 69 % reduction in risk compared to no prophylaxis. Subgroup analysis revealed significant differences in efficacy based on antibiotic type, with moxifloxacin (OR: 0.24, 95 % CI: 0.20–0.29) and vancomycin (OR: 0.11, 95 % CI: 0.04–0.30) showing the greatest protective effects. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of results, though publication bias was…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 5,665,621 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