Table 2.

Endophthalmitis rates in reported adult case series.

Study	Time Period	Location	Number of Operations	Incidence of endophthalmitis n (%)	Comments
This study (2019)	2010–2015	West Midlands, UK	157,653	37 (0.025%)	Retrospective cohort
Donachie et al. (2016) [13]	2014–2015	UK	75,827	14 (0.018%)	National Ophthalmology Database (NOD) Audit Retrospective, cross sectional study
Inoue et al. [14]	2012–2013	Japan	52,983	13 (0.025%)	Prospective study of cases presenting up to 8 weeks post-op
Creuzot-Garcher et al. [15]	2005–2014	France	6,371,242	6668 (0.105%)	Retrospective cohort, cases up to 6 weeks post-op
Nam et al. [16]	2006–2009	Gyeongsangnam-do and Pusan city, South Korea	192,747	71 (0.037%)	Retrospective, cross-sectional study
Lundström et al. [17]	2002–2010	Sweden	692,786	244 (0.035%)	Retrospective cohort
Hatch et al. [18]	2002–2006	ON, Canada	442,177	617 (0.140%)	Retrospective cohort
Montan et al. [19]	1998	Sweden	54,666	58 (0.100%)	Prospective study, follow-up to 2 years post-op
Mollan et al. [20]	1996–2004	Birmingham, UK	101,920	105 (0.103%)	Retrospective cohort

Multicentre studies of incidence. All figures reported post cataract endophthalmitis. Creuzot-Garcher et al. [15] specify all cases are phacoemulsification. Inoue et al. [14], were 99.4% phaco, 0.5% ECCE, 0.1% ICCE. The other series do not explicitly specify operating technique, but majority of cases are presumed phacoemulsification from the years of data collection. No one method of antibiotic prophylaxis was used; generally, a mixture of intra-cameral, subconjunctival and topical depending on the operating surgeon/institution.