Effect of Taping Face Masks on Quantitative Particle Counts Near the Eye: Implications for Intravitreal Injections in the COVID-19 Era

Endophthalmitis after Anti-VEGF Intravitreal Injections with Aqueous Chlorhexidine versus Povidone-Iodine as Ocular Antiseptics

PURPOSE

To compare the rates and outcomes of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injections (IVIs) for patients pretreated with 5% povidone-iodine (PI) and 0.05% chlorhexidine (CHX).

DESIGN

A retrospective, single-center, comparative cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 8686 patients were included in the study, and a total of 67 695 anti-VEGF injections were performed from January 1, 2019, to November 30, 2021.

SETTING

A private retina practice of 13 retina specialists in Colorado.

METHODS

Using electronic health records, patients with preinjection preparation with PI or CHX were compiled retrospectively. Use of prefilled versus nonprefilled syringes was also tabulated. Patients with postinjection endophthalmitis (PIE) were identified among the 2 groups. Postinjection endophthalmitis is defined as an inflammation of the eye from infectious agents after an IVI. Logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity (VA) was determined at the time of causative anti-VEGF injection, endophthalmitis presentation, and 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 67 695 IVIs were administered by 13 retina specialists during the study period. A total of 13 of 32 802 (0.0396%; 1 in 2523 injections) cases of presumed endophthalmitis occurred in the PI group, and 9 of 34 893 (0.0258%; 1 in 3877 injections) cases in the CHX group (P = 0.395). For the PI group, there were 2 culture-positive endophthalmitis cases (0.0061%, 1 in 16 401), compared with 2 cases in the CHX group (0.00573%, 1 in 17 447) (P = 1.000). No significant difference was observed in the average logMAR VA of PI and CHX at causative injection (P = 0.3851), endophthalmitis encounter (P = 0.7718), and 3-month follow-up (P = 0.6152). A significant reduction in presumed endophthalmitis (P = 0.0445) and culture-positive cases (P = 0.0130) was present for prefilled IVI compared with nonprefilled injections.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference in the rate of endophthalmitis or visual outcomes were found in the CHX group compared with the PI group. Prefilled syringes were associated with a significant reduction in endophthalmitis rate. Further multicenter studies are needed to validate the efficacy and safety of CHX compared with PI for IVI preparation.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

COVID-19 pandemic and impact of universal face mask wear on ocular surface health and risk of infection

Universal mask wear is an effective public health intervention to reduce SARS-Cov-2 transmission, especially in enclosed public spaces and healthcare environments. Concerns have been raised about possible transmission of the SARS-Cov-2 through ocular secretions, leading to enhanced protective measures during ophthalmic procedures. However, there is some evidence for air jets from the upper edge of the surgical mask to the ocular surface, especially when the mask is not well fit. Prolonged airflow towards the ocular surface during expiration may alter tear-film stability, leading to hyperosmolarity and ocular surface inflammation. This also raises the question of whether the ocular surface is contaminated with oral flora from airflow directed toward the eyes, thus increasing the risk of ocular infection. Herein we review the impact of patient face mask wear on the ocular surface, eyelids and risk of ocular infection, particularly during ocular surgery. There is some evidence for increased incidence of dry eye or eyelid disease during periods of mandatory face mask wear. While high daily exposure is consistent with a direct association, this should be mitigated by various cofounding factors which could also affect the ocular health during the COVID-19 pandemic. An increased risk of post-intravitreal injection endophthalmitis, possibly due to face mask wear by the patient, including culture-positive endophthalmitis, has been reported in one retrospective study. Several measures have been shown to prevent or limit the risk of developing dry eye disease or exacerbation, eyelid cyst, and ocular infection during intravitreal injections.

Rates of endophthalmitis before and after transition from povidone-iodine to aqueous chlorhexidine asepsis for intravitreal injection

OBJECTIVE

To assess the rate of post-intravitreal injection endophthalmitis between 2 asepsis groups: aqueous chlorhexidine 0.1% and povidone-iodine 5%.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with infectious endophthalmitis post intravitreal injection (n = 58) at a single centre from July 2009 to July 2022.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of all patients receiving intravitreal injections (216 593 injections) at a single centre over 14 years. Patients from July 2009 to February 2017 received povidone-iodine 5%, and patients from March 2017 to July 2022 received aqueous chlorhexidine 0.1%. Assessed characteristics of endophthalmitis cases included demographics, visual function, intervention type, and microbiological results.

RESULTS

The rate of endophthalmitis was comparable for povidone-iodine (1.4:5000) and aqueous chlorhexidine (1.3:5000) (p = 0.77). Vitreous cultures were negative for 55% of patients. Visual acuity (VA) outcomes did not differ between asepsis groups nor between culture positive/negative groups. Patients having vitrectomy (PPV) had worse final vision (p = 0.08) but there was no VA difference between early and late PPV.

CONCLUSIONS

Aqueous chlorhexidine 0.1% is a viable and safe alternative to povidone-iodine 5% for post-intravitreal injection endophthalmitis prophylaxis and may reduce ocular surface adverse events and discomfort.

Comparison of Endophthalmitis Rates after Alcohol-Based Chlorhexidine and Povidone-Iodine Antisepsis for Intravitreal Injections

OBJECTIVE

Intravitreal injections (IVIs) are the most frequently performed intraocular procedure in Canada. Povidone-iodine (PI) is the current gold standard for antisepsis for IVI and is widely used; chlorhexidine (CH) is a possible alternative antiseptic agent. This study aims to compare rates of endophthalmitis after IVI with 0.05% chlorhexidine with a 4% alcohol base antisepsis to rates of endophthalmitis after IVI with 10% PI antisepsis.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SUBJECTS

Eyes that received IVI between May 2019 and October 2022 at a group retina practice in Edmonton, Canada.

METHODS

Eyes at a single center received focal conjunctival application of either 10% PI antisepsis or 0.05% CH in 4% alcohol antisepsis for 30 seconds before each IVI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Rates of endophthalmitis between the PI and CH groups.

RESULTS

A total of 170 952 IVIs were performed during the study period. A total of 31 135 were performed using CH prophylaxis compared with 139 817 with PI prophylaxis. Among all IVIs there were 49 total cases of endophthalmitis, 29 in the PI group (0.021%) and 20 in the CH group (0.064%). There was a statistically significant difference in the rates of endophthalmitis between the 2 groups (P < 0.001). The odds ratio for developing endophthalmitis with CH antisepsis was 3.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.9-5.2) compared with PI antisepsis. There were increased odds of developing endophthalmitis with aflibercept injection compared with bevacizumab (odds ratio, 3.48; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-7.24).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a statistically significant difference in rates of endophthalmitis between alcohol-based CH and PI antisepsis for IVI in our patient population utilizing the methods discussed. In our center, alcohol-based CH is now considered a second-line antiseptic agent. Further studies are warranted to further assess the endophthalmitis rate utilizing these 2 antiseptic agents.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Impact of Prefilled Syringes and Masking on Postintravitreal Injection Endophthalmitis

Purpose: To compare rates of endophthalmitis (1) following intravitreal injection of antivascular endothelial growth factor therapies with glass-vial preparation (GVP) vs prefilled syringes (PFS) and (2) before and after masking protocols were implemented. Methods: Medical records within a multicenter retina practice in Houston, Texas, from January 2015 to August 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was rate of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection. Results: A total of 307 349 injections were performed during the study period and 101 cases of endophthalmitis were identified (0.033%). PFS use was associated with a decreased risk of endophthalmitis (relative risk [RR], 0.320; 95% CI, 0.198-0.518, P < .001); 54 cases of endophthalmitis occurred in the GVP group of aflibercept and ranibizumab (0.052%) compared with 24 in the PFS group (0.017%). There was no difference in the endophthalmitis rates with or without universal masking (RR, 0.953; 95% CI 0.616-1.473, P = .91). Discussion: PFS use was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of endophthalmitis while the use of surgical face masks did not appear to significantly impact the rate of endophthalmitis.

Intravitreal Injections and Face Masks: Endophthalmitis Risk Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Purpose

To assess the added risk of acute endophthalmitis after intravitreal injections associated with the widespread use of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

In this retrospective, single-center study, records of patients with acute endophthalmitis following intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) injections during the pre-COVID era-that is, March 1st , 2013 to October 31st , 2019 -and the COVID-19 era-that is, March 1st , 2020 to April 1st , 2021 -were reviewed and compared.

Results

A total of 28,085 IVB injections were performed during the pre-COVID era; nine eyes of nine patients developed acute post-IVB endophthalmitis in this era, giving an overall incidence of 0.032% (3.2 in 10,000 injections). In the COVID era, 10,717 IVB injections were performed; four eyes of four patients developed acute post-IVB endophthalmitis in this era, giving an overall incidence of 0.037% (3.7 in 10,000 injections). The incidences of post-IVB endophthalmitis during these two eras were not statistically significantly different (P = 0.779).

Conclusion

Face masking protocols seem unlikely to impose any additional risk of post-IVB endophthalmitis.

Effect of fenestrated sterile drape and face mask on bacterial dispersion toward the periocular area during intravitreal injection

This experimental crossover study was performed to investigate whether fenestrated surgical drapes (covering the nose and mouth but with an opening over the periorbital area) with or without patients' surgical face masks increase periorbital bacterial dispersion during simulated intravitreal injection conditions. Each of the 16 healthy volunteers performed 14 scenarios involving different mask and drape conditions in both silent and speaking situations. In each scenario, the subject lay down flat on the back with a blood agar plate being held at the inferior orbital rim perpendicular to the face to capture airflow from breathing/speaking. Another blood agar plate placed 50 cm away from the subject served as an experimental control. A total of 224 experiments were performed. Speaking situations significantly showed more colony forming units (CFUs) compared with their controls (P = 0.014). There were no significant differences in CFUs between wearing vs not wearing the masks (P = 0.887 for speaking and P = 0.219 for silent) and using vs not using the drapes (P = 0.941 for speaking and P = 0.687 for silent). Reusable and disposable drapes were also not significantly different (P = 1.00 for speaking and P = 0.625 for silent). Streptococcus spp., the oropharyngeal microbiota, were only cultivated from speaking scenarios. While refraining from speaking (for both practitioners and patients) is the mainstay of reducing bacterial dispersion and risks of post-injection endophthalmitis, the use of fenestrated surgical drapes or patients' face masks did not significantly affect the amount of bacterial dispersion toward the periorbital area.

Relationship between surgical field contamination by patient's exhaled air and the state of the drapes during eye surgery

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a dramatic increase in facemask use. Consequently, it has been reported that exhaled airflow toward the eyes can cause the dispersal of bacteria into the eyes, potentially increasing the incidence of postoperative endophthalmitis. In addition to wearing a facemask, gaps between the surgical drape and skin can also direct exhaled airflow toward the eyes. Here, we aimed to examine how the risk of contamination varies depending on the state of the drapes. We used a carbon dioxide imaging camera to visualize changes in exhaled airflow under different drape conditions and a particle counter to evaluate changes in the number of particles around the eye. The results revealed airflow present around the eye and a significant increase in the number of particles when the nasal side of the drape was detached from the skin. However, when a metal rod called "rihika" was used to create space above the body, the airflow and number of particles were significantly reduced. Thus, if drape coverage becomes incomplete during surgery, exhaled airflow toward the eye may contaminate the surgical field. On hanging up the drape, airflow can escape in the direction of the body, potentially preventing contamination.

Face mask use and effects on the ocular surface health: A comprehensive review

In the COVID-19 period, face masks increased exponentially. Several studies suggest that the rise in ocular discomfort symptoms during the pandemic is mostly part of dry eye disease and that these are due to the effect of face masks, resulting in the newly described term MADE, for "mask-associated dry eye". The most commonly proposed mechanism states that wearing a face mask creates an unnatural upward airflow towards the ocular surface during expiration, although the increased temperature, humidity and levels of carbon dioxide of the exhaled air, stress, increased use of video display terminals, as well as changes in the ocular microbiota may contribute. Evidence supports that the use of face masks causes an increase in dry eye disease symptoms, a decreased tear break-up time, corneal epithelial trauma, periocular temperature changes and inflammatory markers secretion. Given that the use of masks may be frequent in some settings in the near future, it is important to establish its effects and consequences on the ocular surface.

The effect of COVID-19 pandemic and wearing face masks on ophthalmology practice: What is known so far? A narrative review

Face masks, along with other preventive measures, can help slow the spread of COVID-19. Despite the positive effect of the mask in combating the virus, it has some negative effects on the human body that must be followed up on and reduced. In this study, we discuss the impact of wearing face masks on the eye and the common issues associated with using them. The literature search was conducted using electronic databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar. Only articles published in English were included. A total of 39 relevant articles were deemed eligible. After the duplicate articles were removed, the titles and abstracts of 20 papers underwent full-text screening. The review comprised both prospective and retrospective investigations, case reports, and a series of reporting ocular symptoms following the use of face masks. The COVID-19 pandemic affected ophthalmology practices in managing patients. New factors must be considered, especially when dealing with anti-VEGF injections, such as the risk of endophthalmitis, tests and symptoms of patients with glaucoma, and the emerging symptoms associated with the COVID-19 vaccination. The use of face masks and breathing aids seemed to influence the tear film.

Are intravitreal injections essential during the COVID-19 pandemic? Global preferred practice patterns and practical recommendations

Tertiary outpatient ophthalmology clinics are high-risk environments for COVID-19 transmission, especially retina clinics, where regular follow-up is needed for elderly patients with multiple comorbidities. Intravitreal injection therapy (IVT) for chronic macular diseases, is one of the most common procedures performed, associated with a significant burden of care because of the vigorous treatment regimen associated with multiple investigations. While minimizing the risk of COVID-19 infection transmission is a priority, this must be balanced against the continued provision of sight-saving ophthalmic care to patients at risk of permanent vision loss. This review aims to give evidence-based guidelines on managing IVT during the COVID-19 pandemic in common macular diseases such as age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macula edema and retinal vascular disease and to report on how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected IVT practices worldwide.

To illustrate some real-world examples, 18 participants in the International Retina Collaborative, from 15 countries and across four continents, were surveyed regarding pre- and during- COVID-19 pandemic IVT practices in tertiary ophthalmic centers. The majority of centers reported a reduction in the number of appointments to reduce the risk of the spread of COVID-19 with varying changes to their IVT regimen to treat various macula diseases. Due to the constantly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the uncertainty about the normal resumption of health services, we suggest that new solutions for eye healthcare provision, like telemedicine, may be adopted in the future when we consider new long-term adaptations required to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Management Patterns and Outcomes for Intravitreal Injection–Related Endophthalmitis

Purpose:

This work describes the clinical management and outcomes in cases of presumed infectious endophthalmitis following intravitreal injection at a tertiary academic medical center.

Methods:

A retrospective review took place of eyes that presented to the Duke Eye Center over a 9-year period and were diagnosed with intravitreal injection–related endophthalmitis. Clinical presentation, management, microbiologic yield, visual outcomes, and complications were abstracted from medical records.

Results:

Of 23 eyes diagnosed with postinjection endophthalmitis, 52.2% underwent anterior chamber tap (33.3% of which first underwent dry needle vitreous tap), 47.8% underwent needle vitreous tap, 17.4% underwent neither, and none underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for initial management. Subsequent PPV was performed in 6 eyes (26.1%). Mean visual acuity (VA) improved by 50 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters at 6 months. Eyes that underwent initial anterior chamber tap had worse presenting VA than those that did not ( P = .01). Eyes undergoing subsequent PPV had worse VA at presentation ( P = .02) and at 6 months ( P < .001). Eyes presenting with VA of hand motion (20/8000) or worse were more likely to undergo subsequent PPV ( P = .02).

Conclusions:

Eyes with intravitreal injection–related endophthalmitis presenting with VA of hand motion or worse were more likely to undergo subsequent PPV. Future studies with larger cohorts may reveal whether earlier vitrectomy should be considered in these patients.

Complications of intravitreal injections: 2022

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review highlights the complications of both intravitreal injection procedure as well as different intravitreal medications including antivascular endothelial growth factors, antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, methotrexate, and steroids. Techniques for reducing rates of endophthalmitis will also be discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Intravitreal vancomycin can cause hemorrhagic occlusive retinal vasculitis resulting in severe vision loss. Intravitreal brolucizumab is associated with intraocular inflammation and retinal vasculitis resulting in significant vision loss. Face mask use by both patient and physician is not associated with increased risk of endophthalmitis and may decrease culture positive endophthalmitis.

SUMMARY

Intravitreal injections continue to be one of the most commonly performed procedures by ophthalmologists. Although the injections are generally well tolerated, sight-threatening complications can occur including endophthalmitis, retinal detachment, and/or retinal vasculitis. Adverse events associated with specific medications are outlined below. Several safety measures have been shown to reduce rates of endophthalmitis, the most concerning complication of this procedure.

Safety Measures for Maintaining Low Endophthalmitis Rate after Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injection before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, intravitreal injections are performed with patients wearing masks. The risk of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection is reported to increase due to an influx of exhaled air containing oral bacteria from the upper part of the mask onto the ocular surface. We retrospectively investigated the incidence of endophthalmitis when intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections were performed using the same infection control measures before and during the pandemic. Vitreoretinal specialists performed intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF agents in the outpatient room of a university hospital. Infection control measures before and during the pandemic included covering the patient’s eye with adhesive face drape and irrigating the ocular surface with 0.25% povidone-iodine before draping, and immediately before and after injection. Before the COVID-19 pandemic (February 2016 to December 2019), one case of endophthalmitis occurred among 31,173 injections performed (0.0032%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.000008–0.017872%). During the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2020 to August 2021), one case of endophthalmitis occurred among 14,725 injections performed (0.0068%; 95% CI, 0.000017–0.037832%). There was no significant difference between the two periods (Fisher’s exact test: p = 0.5387). Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, very low incidence of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection can be maintained by implementing basic infection prophylactic measures, including face draping and 0.25% povidone-iodine irrigation, established before COVID-19 pandemic.

The Impact of COVID-19 on US and International Retina Specialists, Their Practices, and Their Patients

Purpose

This work analyzes data from a series of surveys developed by the American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS) that assesses the impact of COVID-19 on physicians, their practices, and their patients.

Methods

Five surveys were sent by the ASRS between March and July 2020 to more than 2600 US and international retina specialists. Data and trends from these surveys were analyzed.

Results

Most responding retina specialists (87%-95% in the United States and internationally) reported having no known COVID-related symptoms despite reported limitations in personal protective equipment. Clinic volumes globally were drastically reduced in March 2020 with only partial recovery through July 2020, which was slower internationally than in the United States. Practices were compelled to reduce staff and physician employment levels. Most respondents estimated some degree of delay in patient treatment with corresponding declines in vision and/or anatomy that were attributed most frequently to patients' fears of the pandemic and least frequently to office unavailability.

Conclusions

The reported impact of COVID-19 on retina specialists, their practices, and their patients has been substantial. Although retina specialists were quickly resilient in optimizing delivery of patient care in a manner safe for patients and providers, the reduction in clinic volume has been devastating in the United States and internationally, with negative impacts on patient outcomes, reductions in practices' volume and employment, and risk to practices' financial health. Future studies will be required to quantify losses associated with these unprecedented and ongoing circumstances caused by the pandemic.

Impact of patient face mask use on endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-VEGF injections

OBJECTIVE

To compare the incidence of endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections with and without patient face masking.

DESIGN

Two-centre retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: Patients receiving a total of 28 501 injections (period 1 before masking: n = 13 863; period 2 after masking: n = 14 638) METHODS: Periods before and after implementation of patient masking were compared: period 1 (July-December 2019) and period 2 (July-December 2020). All patients requiring treatment for endophthalmitis following intravitreal anti-VEGF injections were reviewed. Endophthalmitis risks were compared. Statistical simulations were run to determine the number of injections or endophthalmitis cases required to detect a statistically significant difference between both periods.

RESULTS

Five patients (0.036%) had endophthalmitis in period 1 compared with 7 patients (0.048%) in period 2. Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, for risk of patient masking was 1.326, 0.421-4.179 (p = 0.63). Three patients (0.022%) in period 1 had culture-positive endophthalmitis compared with 2 patients (0.014%) in period 2. Risk of patient masking for culture-positive endophthalmitis was 0.631, 0.105-3.779 (p = 0.61). Assuming similar rates of endophthalmitis, 476,806 injections in both groups would be required to detect a significant difference. Alternatively, assuming that masking would increase endophthalmitis risk in period 2, a significant difference would require twice as many cases (n = 15, 0.102%) for a risk of 2.843, 1.033-7.825 (p = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of patient masking in clinical practice did not significantly alter the rate of endophthalmitis following intravitreal anti-VEGF injections.

The Influence of Universal Face Mask Use on Endophthalmitis Risk after Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections

Purpose

Routine use of face masks for patients and physicians during intravitreal anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections has increased with the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This study evaluates the impact of universal face mask use on rates and outcomes of post-injection endophthalmitis (PIE).

Design

Retrospective, multicenter, comparative cohort study.

Participants

Eyes receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF injections from October 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020, at 12 centers.

Methods

Cases were divided into a “no face mask” group if no face masks were worn by the physician or patient during intravitreal injections or a “universal face mask” group if face masks were worn by the physician, ancillary staff, and patient during intravitreal injections.

Main Outcome Measures

Rate of endophthalmitis, microbial spectrum, and visual acuity (VA).

Results

Of 505 968 intravitreal injections administered in 110 547 eyes, 85 of 294 514 (0.0289%; 1 in 3464 injections) cases of presumed endophthalmitis occurred in the “no face mask” group, and 45 of 211 454 (0.0213%; 1 in 4699) cases occurred in the “universal face mask” group (odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–1.18; P = 0.097). In the “no face mask” group, there were 27 cases (0.0092%; 1 in 10 908 injections) of culture-positive endophthalmitis compared with 9 cases (0.004%; 1 in 23 494) in the “universal face mask” group (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22–0.99; P = 0.041). Three cases of oral flora–associated endophthalmitis occurred in the “no face mask” group (0.001%; 1 in 98 171 injections) compared with 1 (0.0005%; 1 in 211 454) in the “universal face mask” group (P = 0.645). Patients presented a mean (range) 4.9 (1–30) days after the causative injection, and mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) VA at endophthalmitis presentation was 2.04 (~20/2200) for “no face mask” group compared with 1.65 (~20/900) for the “universal face mask” group (P = 0.022), although no difference was observed 3 months after treatment (P = 0.764).

Conclusions

In a large, multicenter, retrospective study, physician and patient face mask use during intravitreal anti-VEGF injections did not alter the risk of presumed acute-onset bacterial endophthalmitis, but there was a reduced rate of culture-positive endophthalmitis. Three months after presentation, there was no difference in VA between the groups.