Skip to main content

Endogenous endophthalmitis: diagnosis, management, and prognosis


Endogenous endophthalmitis is an ophthalmic emergency that can have severe sight-threatening complications. It is often a diagnostic challenge because it can manifest at any age and is associated with a number of underlying predisposing factors. Microorganisms associated with this condition vary along a broad spectrum. Depending upon the severity of the disease, both medical and surgical interventions may be employed. Due to rarity of the disease, there are no guidelines in literature for optimal management of these patients. In this review, treatment guidelines based on clinical data and microorganism profile have been proposed.



Intraocular infection affecting the inner coats of the eye associated with significant, progressive vitreous inflammation is termed as endophthalmitis [14]. Endophthalmitis is an ophthalmic emergency that can result in devastating ocular and systemic complications. The most common route of entry of infective organisms is through an external wound of entry, such as trauma, surgery, or infected cornea. These cases of endophthalmitis are termed as exogenous endophthalmitis. Endogenous endophthalmitis (EE), on the other hand, results from the hematogenous spread of microorganisms from distant foci [57].

EE accounts for approximately 2–8 % of all cases of endophthalmitis [2, 811]. Due to paucity of the disease, literature on EE mostly comprises of case series or single case reports. Unlike exogenous endophthalmitis, demographics, treatment options, and outcome measures in patients with EE have not been studied in large-scale studies.

The first case of bacterial EE has been published in 1856 [12]. Subsequently, a major review including approximately 335 cases of bacterial EE was published in 2003 [11], and the authors have recently updated their initial data by accommodating further reports [13]. However, there have been no major reviews encompassing all the infective etiologies, including both bacterial and fungal, in literature. With changing patterns of microbial disease epidemiology, re-emergence of certain infectious diseases, antibiotic susceptibility, and development of superbugs, a systematic reappraisal of EE is necessary.

Causative organisms

The etiology of EE is multifactorial, and the list of causative organisms is extensive, with significant geographic variation. Both bacterial and fungal agents are noted in the literature as potential agents of EE in the developed world. However, fungal organisms account for the majority of the cases [9, 10]. The organisms responsible for bacterial EE differ depending on the geographic location. In the developed world, gram-positive organisms (Streptococci and Staphylococci) dominate the infection, whereas gram-negative organisms are more common in the Asian population [9, 14]. Asian studies have reported fungi as the causative organisms in approximately 11.1 to 17.54 % of total cases of EE, with the rest being attributed to bacterial causes [14, 15].

Risk factors

EE is frequently associated with many underlying systemic risk factors [3, 5, 10, 1623]. The most common risk factors include recent hospitalization, diabetes mellitus, urinary tract infection, immunosuppression (especially associated with underlying malignancy, neutropenia, and HIV (human immunodeficiency virus)), intravenous drug abuse (IVDA), and indwelling catheters [10].

Liver abscesses have been noted to be associated with EE, especially those caused by gram-negative rods such as Klebsiella pneumonia [24]. In most of these cases with Klebsiella, diabetes is the major underlying systemic risk factor [25, 26]. This finding is most prominently noted in the Asian population where bacterial endophthalmitis is more common [15]. Infective endocarditis (IE) is another important risk factor commonly associated with EE in the western countries [27, 28]. Various causes of transient bacteremia such as routine colonoscopy can also lead to EE [29].

According to a study assessing differences between the risk factors for mold and yeast infections, patients with mold infections were more likely to be associated with the use of chemotherapy as well as organ transplantation especially cardiac and liver transplants [16]. Similar results have been reported with molds as a common cause of EE in patients on immunosuppressive therapy for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) or for any hematological malignancy [30]. Patients with lung involvement by Aspergillus are at a specially increased risk for developing EE [4, 30, 31].

Neonatal endogenous endophthalmitis deserves a special mention. Unlike endophthalmitis in adults, neonatal cases are overwhelmingly as a result of an endogenous source of infection. Neonates with candidemia, bacteremia, and retinopathy of prematurity and low birth weight are at significant risk for developing EE [3234]. According to a large cohort study, the odds of neonates with bacteremia, candidemia, and retinopathy of prematurity to develop EE are 21.11, 2.36, and 2.05, respectively (p < 0.0001) [32]. The causative organisms are often bacteria from Streptococci species, especially S. agalactiae, gram-negative rods like Klebsiella or Pseudomonas and fungi including Candida species. A recent report suggested decreasing incidence of neonatal EE in the developed world [32].

It is important to note that EE has also been reported in immunocompetent patients without underlying predisposing conditions. EE may be the first manifestation of an underlying occult systemic focus of infection, while the systemic cultures for infective organisms are still negative [3539].


Endogenous endophthalmitis results from metastatic spread of the organism from a primary site of infection in the setting of bacteremia or fungemia [40]. Most frequently, the organism reaches the eye through the posterior segment vasculature. The right eye is more commonly involved probably due to the more direct route through the right carotid artery [40]. Direct spread from contagious sites can also occur in cases of central nervous system infection via the optic nerve [41]. Unlike postoperative and posttraumatic endophthalmitis where tissue damage results primarily from toxins produced by the organism, it is postulated that in endogenous endophthalmitis, damage is most probably due to a septic embolus that enters the posterior segment vasculature and acts as a nidus for dissemination of the organism into the surrounding tissues after crossing the blood-ocular barrier to cause microbial proliferation and inflammatory reactions within these tissues. Infection then extends from the retina and the choroid into the vitreous cavity and thereafter to the anterior chamber of the eye [42].

Clinical features

The diagnosis of EE may be difficult because of the variability in the clinical signs and symptoms. The organisms causing EE gain access to the internal ocular tissues through the blood-ocular barrier [43]. Due to progressive inflammation, the patients may experience decreased vision, which is the most common reason for visiting a doctor [5, 18, 37]. The other classic features include eyelid edema, conjunctival injection, circumcorneal congestion, pain, photophobia, and the presence of floaters [5]. Anterior chamber inflammation with hypopyon, absent red reflex, vitreous cells, and haze may also occur [21, 28]. These findings of anterior chamber involvement are more common in bacterial causes of EE [6]. There may be a poor view of the fundus due to the presence of exudates and vitreous haze. Other findings include corneal edema, presence of iris nodules, and pupillary distortion secondary to synechiae formation [44, 45]. Bilateral involvement can also occur. Causative organisms such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis can present with bilateral endogenous endophthalmitis and scleral inflammation (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

A case of bilateral tubercular endogenous endophthalmitis with scleritis. a Slit lamp biomicroscopy of the left eye with diffuse and circumcorneal congestion and scleral involvement. There is corneal edema and opacification superiorly. The pupil has broad-based synechiae, and the view of the posterior segment was hazy. b The right eye with severe congestion and ciliary injection. There was a yellow glow present (visible near the inferior pupillary border). c A wide-angled fundus photograph of the left eye with vitreous haze secondary to vitritis along with focal sheathing of superior vessels. The fluorescein angiography (d) shows presence of superior perivascular hyperfluorescence and leakage of dye in the superotemporal periphery

The hallmark of EE is significant involvement of the vitreous cavity. Vitreous involvement by Candida can present as vitritis or fluffy white retinal lesions extending into the vitreous [43]. Aspergillus can present as yellow/white lesions which can be focal or diffuse [4, 20, 37] (Fig. 2). If the media clarity permits, retinal hemorrhage and cotton wool spots may be visualized on examination [37]. Severe vitreal involvement in bacterial EE can present with a sub-retinal and choroidal abscess [46]. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) associated endophthalmitis is associated with high rates of retinal detachment especially when the time period between onset of symptoms and presentation is delayed by more than 2 weeks [3]. Other non-specific findings can include flame-shaped hemorrhages, Roth spots and cotton wool spots [6, 45].

Fig. 2
figure 2

Fundus photograph of a 78-year-old male (a) with a yellow white mass in the temporal paramacular region with some superficial hemorrhages suggestive of a choroidal abscess. The patient was diagnosed with Nocardia endophthalmitis based on retinal aspirates (d, e). b Fundus photograph taken at 3 weeks following intravenous trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole therapy. There was a marked resolution of the lesion and improvement in media clarity at month 3 (c). d Hematoxylin-eosin staining (×20) of the retinal aspirate. e Gram-positive branching rods of Nocardia species (×40)

Clinical findings in EE can be subdivided into three categories to aid the ophthalmologist to rule in the diagnosis. Positive signs are strongly suggestive of endogenous endophthalmitis, whereas probable signs are non-specific but could be present in a case of EE. Table 1 provides a list of clinical signs associated with EE.

Table 1 Ocular signs suggestive of endogenous endophthalmitis [13, 42]

Visual acuity, as explained above, can be variably affected at the time of presentation, but is generally used as an outcome measure along with a dilated funduscopic examination to follow up the patient after starting treatment. A relative afferent pupillary defect (RAPD) can also be present and can guide the need for a vitrectomy [26].

A large study was conducted to assess the involvement of eyes in patients with candidemia. A total of 370 patients were enrolled; among them, 60 (16.2 %) patients were found to have ocular manifestations on fundoscopic examination. Among these 60 subjects with ocular involvement, 6 patients were diagnosed with EE [43]. In approximately 18 % of the patients, new lesions were seen after an initial negative funduscopic examination. This led to a hypothesis that there is a significant time delay between seeding and development of visible retinal lesions; therefore, patients may have a normal retinal exam initially.

In order to classify the severity of ocular involvement in EE, numerous attempts have been made to classify the disease. However, there is no unifying broadly accepted classification for EE available till date. Ishibashi et al. and Petit et al. have previously proposed clinical classifications of fungal EE [47, 48].


The diagnosis of EE requires a high index of suspicion with presence of one of the above mentioned systemic risk factors and/or presence of characteristic ocular findings on detailed ophthalmoscopic examination (Table 1) [49]. However a clinical diagnosis of EE is always difficult as it has a high false negative rate for EE [5, 49]. Multiple clinic visits may be required to confirm the diagnosis. It is also important to note that the presence of EE is generally not among the major concerns in patients with life-threatening invasive fungal diseases or sepsis secondary to a bacterial etiology [50], and hence the diagnosis of EE may be delayed with other morbidities being managed acutely.

To confirm the presence of a specific etiology, vitreous aspiration and diagnostic vitrectomy followed by a culture and histological examination are commonly used [16, 43, 51]. The need for a diagnostic vitrectomy is dependent on the clinician’s judgment. Vitrectomy has a higher diagnostic yield for culture (92 %) compared to a vitreous aspirate (44 %) as shown by Lingappan et al. [5]. Similar results were obtained in another study with needle biopsy negative cases growing organisms on culture following vitrectomy [52]. The study showed that vitreous samples during vitrectomy were taken near the retinal surface, which can potentially explain the lower yield of needle biopsy as early or localized infection located near the retinal surface might be missed by a needle biopsy [16].

Another emerging technique is the use of real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of aqueous and vitreous samples for detection of the etiology of EE. Sugita et al. reported excellent sensitivity as well as specificity of RT-PCR for detection of fungi [53]. In the same study, PCR was able to detect causative fungi in 5 culture negative specimens. This technique has the advantage of rapid diagnosis (within 90 min), better detection than cultures as well as no fear of contamination of culture samples yielding false positive results [10, 54, 55]. Somya et al. in their study demonstrated increased sensitivity of PCR over culture [56]. PCR-Based techniques can be used to rule out the presence of pathogens with confidence, which is a unique advantage of this methodology. This diagnostic tool promises to be useful in the management of patients with endophthalmitis, especially in samples that are culture negative [57]. However, a potential disadvantage of this diagnostic technique is the inability to determine antibiotic susceptibility [21].

The most reliable way of diagnosing systemic infection is blood culture. Blood must be drawn on three consecutive days using sterile precautions. Previous large series have shown higher rates of positivity following blood culture as compared to vitreous aspirate possibly due to larger volume sampled. It is also important to culture other extra ocular sites to identify the possible nidus of infection and guide systemic therapy accordingly, for example, urine cultures. Confirmatory identification of extra ocular sources of infection are reported in 21–100 % of cases in the literature [5, 18, 21]. Identification of these infectious foci is particularly important in cases where vitreous cultures are negative [15].

Imaging of ocular tissues is an important means to diagnose intraocular infection. Presence of exudates in the vitreous cavity can present as echoes in the ultrasound B-scan of the eye. Patients with EE can present with abscesses in the choroid (Fig. 2). These can be detected as dome-shaped lesions arising from the choroid on B-scan. Complications of EE, including retinal detachment may be difficult to assess clinically. In such situations, ultrasound B-scan can help in identification of retinal detachment (Fig. 3). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) has also been used as an imaging modality in patients with EE where it helps in localizing the pathology within the retinal layers as well as sub-retinal space [58, 59]. It can demonstrate sub-retinal exudates with elevation of retinal pigment epithelium, intra-retinal lesions with or without extrusion into the vitreous, choroidal thickening, and posterior vitreous cells [59, 60].

Fig. 3
figure 3

Ultrasound B-scan of a patient diagnosed with endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis following septic arthritis. There is presence of dense, hyper-reflective echoes in the vitreous cavity suggestive of exudates (yellow arrow). The membrane-like echo in the scan marked by yellow triangles suggests presence of a total retinal detachment


As an ophthalmological emergency, prompt management is required for any patient with suspected EE. Approach to management of such a patient involves assessment of degree of ocular involvement, identification of the causative organism, and the underlying source of infection and then treatment of both the endophthalmitis and the underlying systemic infection. Summary of the steps in the diagnosis and management of EE are illustrated in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure 4

A proposed management of patients with endogenous endophthalmitis. Signs such as poor visual acuity (≤ perception of light), large hypopyon, and choroidal abscess make the diagnosis of endophthalmitis very likely. In a neonate with white reflex, endophthalmitis (along with other considerations such as malignancy) must be kept as a possibility in the differential diagnosis. Sight-threatening lesions involving the fovea, optic nerve head, cornea, limbus, or sclera may require prompt surgical management. APD afferent pupillary defect, V A visual acuity, LP light perception

Bacterial endogenous endophthalmitis

Systemic therapy

Treatment of the underlying source of bacteremia is necessary with systemic antibiotics. Systemic antibacterial therapy should be initiated after blood cultures have been obtained. However, treatment with systemic antibiotics tailored to systemic infection alone is not sufficient, and most patients with severe endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis may require intravitreal antibiotics. In addition, pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) may also be needed for the treatment of endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis.

Local therapy

Cultures of vitreous obtained by needle aspiration or vitrectomy are indicated as soon as infectious endophthalmitis is suspected. Timing of administration of the intravitreal antibiotics has not been officially established; however, Yonekawa et al. showed that early administration, i.e., within 24 h, was associated with a favorable outcome [28]. Treatment is first initiated with empirical intravitreal antibiotics that provide a cover for both gram-positive and gram-negative organisms, when the etiology is unknown. These include vancomycin 1 mg/0.1 ml plus either ceftazidime 2.25 mg/0.1 ml or amikacin 0.4 mg/0.1 ml [12, 26, 44]. For gram-positive infections, vancomycin is the primary drug used because of emergence of many cases of methicillin-resistant organisms [28]. However, recently, there have been reports of gram-positive cases resistant to vancomycin [61]. Khera et al. reported seven cases of EE caused by vancomycin-resistant bacteria [62].

There are multiple therapeutic agents that can be used for gram-negative infections. The most commonly used drug to provide gram-negative coverage is ceftazidime (2.25 mg/0.1 ml) or amikacin (400 μg/0.1 ml) [14, 28, 63]. Fluoroquinolones also have good gram-positive and gram-negative coverages, especially the fourth generation fluoroquinolones [61]. However, recently, resistance against fluoroquinolones is on a rapid rise [6466]. Antibiotics can be tailored further once the organism is identified and susceptibility pattern is known from vitreous and blood cultures. Table 2 lists the most commonly used intravitreal antibiotics.

Table 2 Commonly used intravitreal antibacterial drugs used for pharmacotherapy of bacterial endogenous endophthalmitis

Early diagnosis and treatment is essential for a better prognosis. However, patients with endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis may have a delayed diagnosis which may lead to poor prognoses [3, 11, 67].

Two important groups that need special attention while administering antibiotics are pregnant and breastfeeding women. Penicillins, cephalosporins, and erythromycin are among the mainline agents in these groups due to good safety profiles [29]. Fluoroquinolones have been associated with abnormalities of developing cartilage in animal studies [68]. Even though there have been no reports of such cases during human pregnancies, it is recommended to use fluoroquinolones only when other safer alternatives are not available despite their good vitreous penetration [29, 68, 69].

Fungal endogenous endophthalmitis

Endogenous Candida endophthalmitis

For severe vitritis, the best approach appears to be vitrectomy accompanied by intravitreal injection of amphotericin or voriconazole and systemic antifungal therapy [70, 71]. The dose of amphotericin B (AMB) deoxycholate for intravitreal injection is 5 to 10 mcg in 0.1 ml sterile water or dextrose. This dose appears to be safe and can be repeated after intervals of 48 h or more if there is evidence of persistent intraocular infection. Systemic administration of AMB is associated with dose-limiting nephrotoxicity, hypotension, arrhythmias, and infusion-related fever and chills (“shake and bake”) [8]. Voriconazole is a newer agent in the armory of drugs used to treat ocular fungal infections. It achieves an excellent intravitreal concentration after oral or intravenous administration [36]. The usual dose of voriconazole is 100–200 mcg in 0.1 ml sterile water. This dose achieves a final concentration of about 25–50 mcg/ml in the vitreous [72].

Among the azoles, the recommended dose of fluconazole according to the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guidelines for Candida endophthalmitis is 400–800 mg daily [73]. Fluconazole is also a broad spectrum agent with a better side effect profile than AMB. Therefore, it has been used in place of AMB as the first-line agent against endogenous fungal endophthalmitis (EFE) as shown by Hamada et al. [74]. IDSA recommended the use of amphotericin B along with flucytosine for Candida endophthalmitis. Alternatively, fluconazole can be used as well. For severe cases of endophthalmitis or vitritis, the adjunctive use of vitrectomy is recommended [73].

The duration of systemic antifungal therapy is a minimum of 6 weeks but the length of therapy depends upon the resolution of ocular lesions. With severe involvement, usually a longer duration of therapy may be required.

Other endogenous fungal endophthalmitis

Treatment in immunocompromised patients includes systemic antifungal therapy (e.g., amphotericin or voriconazole). If the patient is able to tolerate surgery, vitrectomy and removal of intraocular lens should be performed followed by intravitreal antifungal therapy using amphotericin or voriconazole. However, if the patient cannot tolerate surgery, intravitreal injection with amphotericin or voriconazole should be administered initially and repeated as needed. Voriconazole has been used to treat fungal infections resistant to fluconazole and amphotericin B [75]. In an in vitro study, voriconazole showed 100 % activity against Aspergillus species, Paecilomyces species, and Fusarium species [76]. Other reports also stated successful treatment of Fusarium and Aspergillus endophthalmitis using voriconazole [77, 78].

IDSA guidelines for the treatment of Aspergillus endophthalmitis recommend the use of IV amphotericin B with addition of intravitreal amphotericin B and pars plana vitrectomy for sight-threatening cases [79]. The recommended alternate therapy is systemic or intravitreal voriconazole. Table 3 summarizes the role of antifungal agents along with their sensitivity profiles.

Table 3 Commonly used intravitreal antifungal drugs employed for pharmacotherapy of fungal endogenous endophthalmitis along with their sensitivity

Pars plana vitrectomy

PPV is a commonly used modality in the treatment of EE. It is recommended for severe and sight-threatening Candida, Aspergillus, or bacterial endophthalmitis [5, 73, 79]. It serves as a diagnostic as well as therapeutic purpose. It may remove a large number of organisms seeding the vitreous cavity thus lowering the disease burden [2, 5, 80]. An intravitreal injection of drugs may also be given while performing the surgery. The decision regarding vitrectomy is usually based on the clinician’s judgment. However, almost all reported cases where a therapeutic vitrectomy was performed are of patients presenting with either sight-threatening disease or of those that were irresponsive to systemic therapy [15, 17, 49, 52, 67, 80].

Zhang et al. has reported better visual outcomes in cases that underwent early vitrectomy [52]. Decision of early vitrectomy has also been associated with a decrease in incidence of retinal detachment and evisceration or enucleation [15, 81]. Sato et al. recommended the use of vitrectomy for Candida EE before stage IV according to Ishibashi’s classification [47]. In cases of bacterial EE, vitrectomy is generally performed when there is no response to intravitreal antibiotics within 48 h or when the eye condition continues to decline or with a worse grade of RAPD [26]. Yoon et al. and Ishii et al. suggested aggressive treatment including early vitrectomy for Klebsiella endophthalmitis might lead to better final outcomes [82, 83]. On the other hand, Sheu et al. found no association between the timing of vitrectomy and visual outcome in Klebsiella endophthalmitis [25]. However, they still suggested the use of surgical intervention, especially in patients with anterior chamber inflammation that did not respond well to intravitreal antibiotics.

Role of corticosteroids

Currently, no clear guidelines exist regarding the use of corticosteroids in endophthalmitis. Inflammation, although essential in combating invading organisms, may end up damaging retinal structures [84]. Steroids have multiple anti-inflammatory effects which include but are not limited to decrease in leucocyte recruitment, attenuating production of various inflammatory cytokines and stabilizing membrane barriers including blood-retinal barrier [85].

Clinical studies have reported controversial results on the use of intravitreal as well as systemic steroids for endophthalmitis [2]. In two case series by Jackson et al., better visual outcomes were reported in the patients who received additional treatment with intraocular steroids [11, 13]. An interim safety analysis of a prospective multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial of IVT dexamethasone as an adjuvant therapy for endophthalmitis did not report any safety risks associated with the use of steroids [85]. On the other hand, Shuwan lee et al. reported no significant association of the use of systemic steroids with better visual outcomes [86]. Shah et al. reported a significantly reduced likelihood of obtaining a three-line improvement in visual outcomes following the use of intravitreal steroids in patients with postoperative endophthalmitis [87].

In summary, data on the use of steroids in endophthalmitis is limited, and the results of studies are conflicting. Therefore, judicious use of steroids is recommended.


In general, EE does not have a favorable prognosis and results in complete vision loss, especially if the diagnosis is missed early on and therefore treatment is delayed [21]. Zenith et al. reported that the eyes with bacterial EE had a worse outcome with more patients requiring enucleation or evisceration compared to patients with fungal EE [21]. The major risk following vitreous aspirate in patients with EE is high incidence of retinal detachment. Surgery for retinal detachment in these cases is difficult, and there is a need for long-term tamponade in such patients post vitrectomy [88].

A clinician has to maintain a very high level of suspicion when a patient with a possible risk factor presents in association with decreased vision and vitreoretinal changes on examination. Early diagnosis and treatment has been associated with 64 % of patients having visual acuity of counting fingers (CF) or better in one study for bacterial EE [28]. This is well above the percentage of patients reported with similar improvement before this study [11]. Itoh et al. also reported that early aggressive treatment can lead to good visual outcomes [89]. Early vitrectomy within 2 weeks of presentation, especially in severe cases or when suspecting a highly virulent organism, can lead to a good overall outcome [79, 82, 83, 86, 90].

Virulence of the organism plays an important role in the visual outcome [15]. Aspergillus and other molds cause more aggressive disease compared to yeasts and therefore carries a worse prognosis [16, 18, 30, 43, 91]. Similarly MRSA endophthalmitis has been reported to be associated with significant mortality [28]. The association of MRSA endophthalmitis with visual outcome has been variable, with some studies reporting no association while others associating it with worse visual outcome [28, 92, 93]. Connell et al. found that all the patients in their study needing enucleation were infected by Klebsiella [10].

In a study conducted to determine factors resulting in poor visual outcome, worse initial visual acuity and centrally located lesions were found to be associated with poor visual outcomes [81]. The same study showed that early vitrectomy prevented the development of retinal detachment. The results of another study in patients with fungal EE showed that early stages were associated with better prognosis. This underscores the importance of detecting and promptly treating the disease at early stages to preserve visual acuity [80]. According to Ang et al., the main prognostic factor in Klebsiella EE is the presence of hypopyon [26]. Other prognostic factors found in the same study include rapid onset of ocular symptoms, unilateral involvement, and panophthalmitis. Another study found no association between final visual acuity (log MAR values) and diabetes, causative organism, source of infection, and performance of vitrectomy [15]. However, the study did report better final visual outcomes in patients with initial visual acuity better than counting fingers.


EE is an ophthalmological emergency that requires prompt diagnosis and management. Figure 4 depicts a simplified flow chart for the diagnosis and management of EE. The main challenges in the management of EE are early identification and delivering an adequate concentration of the drug in the vitreous cavity. It may be possible to overcome this challenge with direct intravitreal administration of the antibiotic.

Systemic therapy is used to treat the focus of infection causing the metastatic spread of the organism to the ocular cavity. In mild cases of EE, systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment. However, in severe cases, systemic therapy is adjuvant to the more aggressive intravitreal administration of drugs.

PPV has a diagnostic as well as therapeutic role in the management of EE. Vitrectomy may be strongly considered as a treatment option if there is no response to systemic or local therapy within 24–48 h of presentation or if the patient has possible worsening. Visual acuity, systemic debility, etiology of infection, and ocular examination must guide the decision to intervene in such cases.



Amphotericin B


Counting fingers


Endogenous endophthalmitis


Endogenous fungal endophthalmitis


Human immunodeficiency virus


Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation


Infectious Disease Society of America


Infective endocarditis


Intravenous drug abuse


Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus


Optical coherence tomography


Polymerase chain reaction


Pars plana vitrectomy


Relative afferent pupillary defect


Real-time polymerase chain reaction


  1. Khan FA, Slain D, Khakoo RA (2007) Candida endophthalmitis: focus on current and future antifungal treatment options. Pharmacotherapy 27(12):1711–1721. doi:10.1592/phco.27.12.1711

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Novosad BD, Callegan MC (2010) Severe bacterial endophthalmitis: towards improving clinical outcomes. Expert Rev Ophthalmol 5(5):689–698. doi:10.1586/eop.10.52

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ho V, Ho LY, Ranchod TM, Drenser KA, Williams GA, Garretson BR (2011) Endogenous methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endophthalmitis. Retina 31(3):596–601. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181ecccf0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vilela RC, Vilela L, Vilela P, Vilela R, Motta R, Possa AP, de Almeida C, Mendoza L (2013) Etiological agents of fungal endophthalmitis: diagnosis and management. Int Ophthalmol. doi:10.1007/s10792-013-9854-z

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lingappan A, Wykoff CC, Albini TA, Miller D, Pathengay A, Davis JL, Flynn HW Jr (2012) Endogenous fungal endophthalmitis: causative organisms, management strategies, and visual acuity outcomes. Am J Ophthalmol 153(1):162–166. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2011.06.020, e161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Grixti A, Sadri M, Datta AV (2012) Uncommon ophthalmologic disorders in intensive care unit patients. Journal of critical care 27(6):746. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.07.013, e749-722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lynn WA, Lightman S (2004) The eye in systemic infection. Lancet 364(9443):1439–1450. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17228-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chhablani J (2011) Fungal endophthalmitis. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 9(12):1191–1201. doi:10.1586/eri.11.139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schiedler V, Scott IU, Flynn HW Jr, Davis JL, Benz MS, Miller D (2004) Culture-proven endogenous endophthalmitis: clinical features and visual acuity outcomes. Am J Ophthalmol 137(4):725–731. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2003.11.013

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Connell PP, O’Neill EC, Fabinyi D, Islam FM, Buttery R, McCombe M, Essex RW, Roufail E, Clark B, Chiu D, Campbell W, Allen P (2011) Endogenous endophthalmitis: 10-year experience at a tertiary referral centre. Eye (Lond) 25(1):66–72. doi:10.1038/eye.2010.145

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jackson TL, Eykyn SJ, Graham EM, Stanford MR (2003) Endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis: a 17-year prospective series and review of 267 reported cases. Surv Ophthalmol 48(4):403–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tsai AS, Lee SY, Jap AH (2010) An unusual case of recurrent endogenous Klebsiella endophthalmitis. Eye (London, England) 24(10):1630–1631. doi:10.1038/eye.2010.95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jackson TL, Paraskevopoulos T, Georgalas I (2014) Systematic review of 342 cases of endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis. Surv Ophthalmol. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2014.06.002

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sharma S, Padhi TR, Basu S, Kar S, Roy A, Das T (2014) Endophthalmitis patients seen in a tertiary eye care centre in Odisha: a clinico-microbiological analysis. Indian J Med Res 139(1):91–98

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lim HW, Shin JW, Cho HY, Kim HK, Kang SW, Song SJ, Yu HG, Oh JR, Kim JS, Moon SW, Chae JB, Park TK, Song Y (2014) Endogenous endophthalmitis in the Korean population: a six-year retrospective study. Retina 34(3):592–602. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e3182a2e705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sridhar J, Flynn HW Jr, Kuriyan AE, Miller D, Albini T (2013) Endogenous fungal endophthalmitis: risk factors, clinical features, and treatment outcomes in mold and yeast infections. J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect 3(1):60. doi:10.1186/1869-5760-3-60

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Durand ML (2013) Endophthalmitis. Clin Microbiol Infect 19(3):227–234. doi:10.1111/1469-0691.12118

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lamaris GA, Esmaeli B, Chamilos G, Desai A, Chemaly RF, Raad II, Safdar A, Lewis RE, Kontoyiannis DP (2008) Fungal endophthalmitis in a tertiary care cancer center: a review of 23 cases. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 27(5):343–347. doi:10.1007/s10096-007-0443-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Keyashian K, Malani PN (2007) Endophthalmitis associated with intravenous drug use. South Med J 100(12):1219–1220. doi:10.1097/SMJ.0b013e3181581191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cheng HH, Ding Y, Wu M, Tang CC, Zhang RJ, Lin XF, Xu JT (2011) Endogenous aspergillus endophthalmitis after kidney transplantation. Int J Ophthalmol 4(5):567–571. doi:10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2011.05.20

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu ZH, Chan RP, Luk FO, Liu DT, Chan CK, Lam DS, Lai TY (2012) Review of clinical features, microbiological spectrum, and treatment outcomes of endogenous endophthalmitis over an 8-year period. J Ophthalmol 2012:265078. doi:10.1155/2012/265078

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. de Lima LM, Cecchetti SA, Cecchetti DF, Arroyo D, Romao EA, Dantas M, Neto MM (2012) Endophthalmitis: a rare but devastating metastatic bacterial complication of hemodialysis catheter-related sepsis. Ren Fail 34(1):119–122. doi:10.3109/0886022X.2011.623557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Reedy JS, Wood KE (2000) Endogenous Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis: a case report and literature review. Intensive Care Med 26(9):1386–1389

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hu CC, Ho JD, Lou HY, Keller JJ, Lin HC (2012) A one-year follow-up study on the incidence and risk of endophthalmitis after pyogenic liver abscess. Ophthalmology 119(11):2358–2363. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.05.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sheu SJ, Kung YH, Wu TT, Chang FP, Horng YH (2011) Risk factors for endogenous endophthalmitis secondary to klebsiella pneumoniae liver abscess: 20-year experience in Southern Taiwan. Retina 31(10):2026–2031. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e31820d3f9e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ang M, Jap A, Chee SP (2011) Prognostic factors and outcomes in endogenous Klebsiella pneumoniae endophthalmitis. Am J Ophthalmol 151(2):338–344. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2010.08.036, e332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Buzzacco DM, Carroll CP (2012) Intravitreal daptomycin in a case of bilateral endogenous endophthalmitis. Arch Ophthalmol 130(7):940–941. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.2527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yonekawa Y, Chan RV, Reddy AK, Pieroni CG, Lee TC, Lee S (2011) Early intravitreal treatment of endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 39(8):771–778. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9071.2011.02545.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wu AY, Oestreicher JH (2011) Endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis after routine colonoscopy. Journal canadien d’ophtalmologie 46(6):556–557. doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2011.10.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Vergoulidou M, Krause L, Foerster MH, Thiel E, Schwartz S (2011) Endogenous filamentous fungal endophthalmitis—single-centre survey in patients with acute leukaemia or postallogeneic stem cell transplantation and review of the literature. Mycoses 54(6):e704–e711. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0507.2010.02004.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sahu C, Kumar K, Sinha MK, Venkata A, Majji AB, Jalali S (2013) Review of endogenous endophthalmitis during pregnancy including case series. Int Ophthalmol 33(5):611–618. doi:10.1007/s10792-012-9697-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moshfeghi AA, Charalel RA, Hernandez-Boussard T, Morton JM, Moshfeghi DM (2011) Declining incidence of neonatal endophthalmitis in the United States. Am J Ophthalmol 151(1):59–65. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2010.07.008, e51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Noyola DE, Bohra L, Paysse EA, Fernandez M, Coats DK (2002) Association of candidemia and retinopathy of prematurity in very low birthweight infants. Ophthalmology 109(1):80–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Basu S, Kumar A, Kapoor K, Bagri NK, Chandra A (2013) Neonatal endogenous endophthalmitis: a report of six cases. Pediatrics 131(4):e1292–e1297. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-3391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mamandhar A, Bajracharya L (2012) Aspergillus endophthalmitis in a healthy individual. Nepal J Ophthalmol 4(1):179–183. doi:10.3126/nepjoph.v4i1.5873

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Logan S, Rajan M, Graham E, Johnson E, Klein J (2010) A case of aspergillus endophthalmitis in an immuncompetent woman: intra-ocular penetration of oral voriconazole: a case report. Cases J 3:31. doi:10.1186/1757-1626-3-31

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Agarwal M, Biswas J, Mathur U, Sijwali MS, Singh AK (2007) Aspergillus iris granuloma in a young male: a case report with review of literature. Indian J Ophthalmol 55(1):73–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee JH, Kim JS, Park YH (2012) Diagnosis and treatment of postpartum Candida endophthalmitis. The J Obstet Gynaecol Res 38(9):1220–1222. doi:10.1111/j.1447-0756.2012.01854.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Shankar K, Gyanendra L, Hari S, Narayan SD (2009) Culture proven endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis in apparently healthy individuals. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 17(6):396–399. doi:10.3109/09273940903216891

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Greenwald MJ, Wohl LG, Sell CH (1986) Metastatic bacterial endophthalmitis: a contemporary reappraisal. Surv Ophthalmol 31(2):81–101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Samiy N, D’Amico DJ (1996) Endogenous fungal endophthalmitis. Int Ophthalmol Clin 36(3):147–162

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Chee SP, Jap A (2001) Endogenous endophthalmitis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 12(6):464–470

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Oude Lashof AM, Rothova A, Sobel JD, Ruhnke M, Pappas PG, Viscoli C, Schlamm HT, Oborska IT, Rex JH, Kullberg BJ (2011) Ocular manifestations of candidemia. Clin Infect Dis : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 53(3):262–268. doi:10.1093/cid/cir355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Dua S, Chalermskulrat W, Miller MB, Landers M, Aris RM (2006) Bilateral hematogenous Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis after lung transplantation. Am J Transplant 6(1):219–224. doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.01133.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Khan A, Okhravi N, Lightman S (2002) The eye in systemic sepsis. Clin Med 2(5):444–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Chen KJ, Chao AN, Hwang YS, Chen YP, Wang NK (2011) Prognostic factors and outcomes in endogenous Klebsiella endophthalmitis. Am J Ophthalmol 151(6):1105–1106. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2011.03.015, author reply 1106–1107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Sato Y, Miyasaka S, Shimada H (2001) Prognosis of endogenous fungal endophthalmitis and utility of Ishibashi’s classification. Jpn J Ophthalmol 45(2):181–186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tanaka M, Kobayashi Y, Takebayashi H, Kiyokawa M, Qiu H (2001) Analysis of predisposing clinical and laboratory findings for the development of endogenous fungal endophthalmitis. A retrospective 12-year study of 79 eyes of 46 patients. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa) 21(3):203–209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Shen X, Xu G (2009) Vitrectomy for endogenous fungal endophthalmitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 17(3):148–152. doi:10.1080/09273940802689396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Binder MI, Chua J, Kaiser PK, Procop GW, Isada CM (2003) Endogenous endophthalmitis: an 18-year review of culture-positive cases at a tertiary care center. Medicine 82(2):97–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Palexas GN, Green WR, Goldberg MF, Ding Y (1995) Diagnostic pars plana vitrectomy report of a 21-year retrospective study. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 93:281–308, discussion 308–214

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhang YQ, Wang WJ (2005) Treatment outcomes after pars plana vitrectomy for endogenous endophthalmitis. Retina 25(6):746–750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sugita S, Kamoi K, Ogawa M, Watanabe K, Shimizu N, Mochizuki M (2012) Detection of Candida and Aspergillus species DNA using broad-range real-time PCR for fungal endophthalmitis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 250(3):391–398. doi:10.1007/s00417-011-1819-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Jaeger EE, Carroll NM, Choudhury S, Dunlop AA, Towler HM, Matheson MM, Adamson P, Okhravi N, Lightman S (2000) Rapid detection and identification of Candida, Aspergillus, and Fusarium species in ocular samples using nested PCR. J Clin Microbiol 38(8):2902–2908

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Okhravi N, Adamson P, Lightman S (2000) Use of PCR in endophthalmitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 8(3):189–200

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Sowmya P, Madhavan HN (2009) Diagnostic utility of polymerase chain reaction on intraocular specimens to establish the etiology of infectious endophthalmitis. Eur J Ophthalmol 19(5):812–817

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Therese KL, Anand AR, Madhavan HN. Polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of bacterial endophthalmitis. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82(9):1078–82.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Rodrigues IA, Jackson TL (2014) A high-definition view of endogenous fungal endophthalmitis. The Lancet Infect Dis 14(4):358. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70216-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Adam CR, Sigler EJ (2014) Multimodal imaging findings in endogenous Aspergillus endophthalmitis. Retina 34(9):1914–1915. doi:10.1097/IAE.0000000000000135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Cho M, Khanifar AA, Chan RV (2011) Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography of endogenous fungal endophthalmitis. Retin Cases Brief Rep 5(2):136–140. doi:10.1097/ICB.0b013e3181cc2146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Ramakrishnan R, Bharathi MJ, Shivkumar C, Mittal S, Meenakshi R, Khadeer MA, Avasthi A (2009) Microbiological profile of culture-proven cases of exogenous and endogenous endophthalmitis: a 10-year retrospective study. Eye (Lond) 23(4):945–956. doi:10.1038/eye.2008.197

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Khera M, Pathengay A, Jindal A, Jalali S, Mathai A, Pappuru RR, Relhan N, Das T, Sharma S, Flynn HW (2013) Vancomycin-resistant Gram-positive bacterial endophthalmitis: epidemiology, treatment options, and outcomes. J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect 3(1):46. doi:10.1186/1869-5760-3-46

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Espinel-Ingroff A, Boyle K, Sheehan DJ (2001) In vitro antifungal activities of voriconazole and reference agents as determined by NCCLS methods: review of the literature. Mycopathologia 150(3):101–115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Miller D, Flynn PM, Scott IU, Alfonso EC, Flynn HW Jr (2006) In vitro fluoroquinolone resistance in staphylococcal endophthalmitis isolates. Arch Ophthalmol 124(4):479–483. doi:10.1001/archopht.124.4.479

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Benz MS, Scott IU, Flynn HW Jr, Unonius N, Miller D (2004) Endophthalmitis isolates and antibiotic sensitivities: a 6-year review of culture-proven cases. Am J Ophthalmol 137(1):38–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Bertino JS Jr (2009) Impact of antibiotic resistance in the management of ocular infections: the role of current and future antibiotics. Clin Ophthalmol 3:507–521

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Smith SR, Kroll AJ, Lou PL, Ryan EA (2007) Endogenous bacterial and fungal endophthalmitis. endophthalmitis. Int Ophthalmol Clin 47(2):173–183. doi:10.1097/IIO.0b013e31803778f7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Bar-Oz B, Moretti ME, Boskovic R, O’Brien L, Koren G (2009) The safety of quinolones—a meta-analysis of pregnancy outcomes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 143(2):75–78. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.12.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Padberg S, Wacker E, Meister R, Panse M, Weber-Schoendorfer C, Oppermann M, Schaefer C (2014) Observational cohort study of pregnancy outcome after first-trimester exposure to fluoroquinolones. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58(8):4392–4398. doi:10.1128/AAC.02413-14

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Barza M (1998) Treatment options for candidal endophthalmitis [editorial; comment]. Clin Infect Dis 27(5):1134–1136

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Martinez-Vazquez C, Fernandez-Ulloa J, Bordon J, Sopena B, de la Fuente J, Ocampo A, Rubianes M (1998) Candida albicans endophthalmitis in brown heroin addicts: response to early vitrectomy preceded and followed by antifungal therapy. Clin Infect Dis 27(5):1130–1133

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Breit SM, Hariprasad SM, Mieler WF, Shah GK, Mills MD, Grand MG (2005) Management of endogenous fungal endophthalmitis with voriconazole and caspofungin. Am J Ophthalmol 139(1):135–140. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2004.08.077

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes D, Benjamin DK Jr, Calandra TF, Edwards JE Jr, Filler SG, Fisher JF, Kullberg BJ, Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Reboli AC, Rex JH, Walsh TJ, Sobel JD, Infectious Diseases Society of A (2009) Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 48(5):503–535. doi:10.1086/596757

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Hamada Y, Okuma R, Katori Y, Takahashi S, Hirayama T, Ichibe Y, Kuroyama M (2013) Bibliographical investigation (domestic and overseas) on the treatment of endogenous Candida endophthalmitis over an 11-year period. Med Mycol J 54(1):53–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Sen P, Gopal L, Sen PR (2006) Intravitreal voriconazole for drug-resistant fungal endophthalmitis: case series. Retina 26(8):935–939. doi:10.1097/01.iae.0000250011.68532.a2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Marangon FB, Miller D, Giaconi JA, Alfonso EC (2004) In vitro investigation of voriconazole susceptibility for keratitis and endophthalmitis fungal pathogens. Am J Ophthalmol 137(5):820–825. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2003.11.078

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Jorgensen JS, Prause JU, Kiilgaard JF (2014) Bilateral endogenous Fusarium solani endophthalmitis in a liver-transplanted patient: a case report. J Med Case Rep 8(1):101. doi:10.1186/1752-1947-8-101

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Durand ML, Kim IK, D’Amico DJ, Loewenstein JI, Tobin EH, Kieval SJ, Martin SS, Azar DT, Miller FS 3rd, Lujan BJ, Miller JW (2005) Successful treatment of Fusarium endophthalmitis with voriconazole and Aspergillus endophthalmitis with voriconazole plus caspofungin. Am J Ophthalmol 140(3):552–554. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2005.03.030

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Walsh TJ, Anaissie EJ, Denning DW, Herbrecht R, Kontoyiannis DP, Marr KA, Morrison VA, Segal BH, Steinbach WJ, Stevens DA, van Burik JA, Wingard JR, Patterson TF, Infectious Diseases Society of A (2008) Treatment of aspergillosis: clinical practice guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 46(3):327–360. doi:10.1086/525258

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Takebayashi H, Mizota A, Tanaka M (2006) Relation between stage of endogenous fungal endophthalmitis and prognosis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 244(7):816–820. doi:10.1007/s00417-005-0182-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Sallam A, Taylor SR, Khan A, McCluskey P, Lynn WA, Manku K, Pacheco PA, Lightman S (2012) Factors determining visual outcome in endogenous Candida endophthalmitis. Retina 32(6):1129–1134. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e31822d3a34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Yoon YH, Lee SU, Sohn JH, Lee SE (2003) Result of early vitrectomy for endogenous Klebsiella pneumoniae endophthalmitis. Retina 23(3):366–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Ishii K, Hiraoka T, Kaji Y, Sakata N, Motoyama Y, Oshika T (2011) Successful treatment of endogenous Klebsiella pneumoniae endophthalmitis: a case report. Int Ophthalmol 31(1):29–31. doi:10.1007/s10792-010-9387-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Callegan MC, Engelbert M, Parke DW 2nd, Jett BD, Gilmore MS (2002) Bacterial endophthalmitis: epidemiology, therapeutics, and bacterium-host interactions. Clin Microbiol Rev 15(1):111–124

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Lindstedt EW, Bennebroek CA, van der Werf DJ, Veckeneer M, Norel AO, Nielsen CC, Wubbels RJ, van Dissel JT, van Meurs JC (2014) A prospective multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial of dexamethasone as an adjuvant in the treatment of postoperative bacterial endophthalmitis: interim safety analysis of the study drug and analysis of overall treatment results. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 252(10):1631–1637. doi:10.1007/s00417-014-2770-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Lee S, Um T, Joe SG, Hwang JU, Kim JG, Yoon YH, Lee JY (2012) Changes in the clinical features and prognostic factors of endogenous endophthalmitis: fifteen years of clinical experience in Korea. Retina 32(5):977–984. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e318228e312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Shah GK, Stein JD, Sharma S, Sivalingam A, Benson WE, Regillo CD, Brown GC, Tasman W (2000) Visual outcomes following the use of intravitreal steroids in the treatment of postoperative endophthalmitis. Ophthalmology 107(3):486–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Kitiratschky VB, Deuter C, Beck R, Schulte B, Muller H, Blumenstock G, Szurman P (2014) Relationship between suspected reasons of intraocular inflammation and the results of diagnostic vitrectomy: an observational study. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. doi:10.3109/09273948.2013.870212

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Itoh M, Ikewaki J, Kimoto K, Itoh Y, Shinoda K, Nakatsuka K (2010) Two cases of endogenous endophthalmitis caused by gram-positive bacteria with good visual outcome. Case Rep Ophthalmol 1(2):56–62. doi:10.1159/000320601

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Jalali S, Pehere N, Rani PK, Bobbili RB, Nalamada S, Motukupally SR, Sharma S (2014) Treatment outcomes and clinicomicrobiological characteristics of a protocol-based approach for neonatal endogenous endophthalmitis. Eur J Ophthalmol 24(3):424–436. doi:10.5301/ejo.5000395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Zhang H, Liu Z (2010) Endogenous endophthalmitis: a 10-year review of culture-positive cases in northern China. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 18(2):133–138. doi:10.3109/09273940903494717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Major JC Jr, Engelbert M, Flynn HW Jr, Miller D, Smiddy WE, Davis JL (2010) Staphylococcus aureus endophthalmitis: antibiotic susceptibilities, methicillin resistance, and clinical outcomes. Am J Ophthalmol 149(2):278–283. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2009.08.023, e271

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Ness T, Schneider C (2009) Endogenous endophthalmitis caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Retina 29(6):831–834. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181a3b7a1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Quan Dong Nguyen.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

MAS participated in the design and coordination and helped to draft the manuscript. MdH participated in the design of the study and helped to draft the manuscript. AA participated in the analysis and revision of the manuscript. SS helped analyze the data and revised the manuscript. ST drafted and revised the manuscript. MKS participated in drafting the manuscript. MH participated in the literature search and analysis. YJS was involved in designing the manuscript and revision of the draft. DD participated in revising the manuscript. QDN supervised everything and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sadiq, M.A., Hassan, M., Agarwal, A. et al. Endogenous endophthalmitis: diagnosis, management, and prognosis. J Ophthal Inflamm Infect 5, 32 (2015).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: