Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Device-Related Endophthalmitis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Endophthalmitis

  • 597 Accesses

Abstract

Ocular devices may be considered in three categories: those that include a component that crosses the sclera or cornea, those that are entirely intraocular, and those that are implanted or placed on the ocular surface. The first category includes the glaucoma drainage device, the keratoprosthesis, and the currently commercially available retinal implants. The second category includes intraocular aphakic or phakic lens implants, intravitreal implants for drug delivery, the micro-bypass stent for glaucoma, prosthetic iris implants for aniridia, and the Implantable Miniature Telescope. The third category includes scleral buckles and contact lenses. This chapter discusses the risk factors, clinical manifestations, microbiology, and visual outcomes of endophthalmitis associated with devices in each of these categories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Minckler DS, Francis BA, Hodapp EA, et al. Aqueous shunts in glaucoma: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:1089–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al. Treatment outcomes in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study after 5 years of follow up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:789–803.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, et al. Postoperative complications in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study during five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:804–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Christakis PG, Tsai JC, Kalenak JW, et al. The Ahmed versus Baerveldt study: three-year treatment outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:2232–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ang GS, Varga Z, Shaarawy T. Postoperative infection in penetrating versus non-penetrating glaucoma surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94:1571–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Levinson JD, Giangiacoma AL, Beck AD, et al. Glaucoma drainage devices: risk of exposure and infection. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;160:516–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rachmiel R, Trope GE, Buys YM, et al. Intermediate-term outcome and success of superior versus inferior Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implantation. J Glaucoma. 2008;17:584–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pakravan M, Yazdani S, Shahabi C, Yaseri M. Superior versus inferior Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:208–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Al-Torbak AA, Al-Shahwan S, Al-Jadaan I, et al. Endophthalmitis associated with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:454–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Mandalos A, Tailor R, Parmar T, Sung V. The long-term outcomes of glaucoma drainage device in pediatric glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2014 October 14 (Epub ahead of print).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Salim NL, Azhany Y, Abdul Rahman Z, et al. Infected Baerveldt glaucoma drainage device by Aspergillus niger. Case Rep Ophthalmol Med. 2015;2015:249419.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Gedde SJ, Cscott IU, Tabandeh H, et al. Late endophthalmitis associated with glaucoma drainage implants. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1323–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kassam F, Lee BE, Damji K. Concurrent endophthalmitis and orbital cellulitis in a child with congenital glaucoma and a glaucoma drainage device. Digital J Ophthamol. 2011;17:58–61.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hollander DA, Dodds EM, Rossetti SB, et al. Propionibacterium acnes endophthalmitis with bacterial sequestration in a Molteno’s implant after cataract extraction. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:878–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stewart MW, Bolling JP, Bendel RE. Nocardia brasiliensis endophthalmitis in a patient with an exposed Ahmed glaucoma drainage implant. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2013;21:69–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fanous MM, Cohn RA. Propionibacterium endophthalmitis following Molteno tube repositioning (case report). J Glaucoma. 1997;6:201–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Trzcinka A, Soans FP, Archer SM, Moroir SE. Late-onset Haemophilus influenzae in an immunized child after Baerveldt implant. J AAPOS. 2008;12:412–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. World Health Organization. Causes of blindness and visual impairment. 2015. http://www.who.int/blindness/causes/en/. Accessed 14 July 2015.

  19. Eye Bank of America. 2015. http://www.restoresight.org/about-us/frequently-asked-questions/. Accessed 14 July 2015.

  20. Akpek EK, Alkharashi M, Hwang FS, et al. Artificial corneas versus donor corneas for repeat corneal transplants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;11:CD009561. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009561.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Thompson Jr RW, Price MO, Bowers PJ, et al. Long-term graft survival after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1396–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Al-Mezaine H, Wagoner MD, King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital Cornea Transplant Study Group. Repeat penetrating keratoplasty: indications, graft survival, and visual outcome. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:324–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Yildiz EH, Hoskins E, Fram N, et al. Third or greater penetrating keratoplasties: indications, survival, and visual outcomes. Cornea. 2010;29:254–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Aldave AJ, Sangwan VS, Basu S, et al. International results with the Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:1530–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fyodorov SN, Kivaev AA, Bagrov SN. Keratoprosthesis in the case of serious leukomas and the endothelial epithelial dystrophy of the cornea: clinical and experimental researches. Oftalmologicheskil Zhurnal. 1970;4:253–5.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kalinnikov YY, Moroz ZI, Leontieva GD, et al. Clinical results of biokeratoprosthesis for leukomas. An Inst Barraquer (Barc). 2001;30:77–81.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Iakymenko S. Forty-five years of keratoprosthesis study and application at the Filatov Institute: a retrospective analysis of 1,060 cases. Int J Ophthalmol. 2013;6:375–80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Huang Y, Dong Y, Wang L, et al. Long-term outcomes of MICOF keratoprosthesis in the end stage of autoimmune dry eyes: an experience in China. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:28–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ghaffariyeh A, Honarpisheh N, Karkhaneh A, et al. Fyodorov-Zuev keratoprosthesis implantation: long-term results in patients with multiple failed grafts. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249:93–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang L, Huang Y, Du G, et al. Long-term outcomes and complications of Moscow Eye Microsurgery Complex in Russia (MICOF) keratoprosthesis following ocular surface burns; clinical experience in China. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99(12):1669–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tan A, Tan DT, Tan Z-W, Mehta JS. Osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis: systematic review of surgical outcomes and complications rates. Ocul Surf. 2012;10:15–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hughes EH, Bataung M, Ainsworth G, et al. Vitreoretinal complications of osteoodontokeratoprosthesis surgery. Retina. 2008;28:1138–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lim LS, Chong LA, Wong E, et al. Vitreoretinal complications and vitreoretinal surgery in osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157:349–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Falcinelli G, Falsini B, Taloni M, et al. Modified osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis for treatment of corneal blindness: long-term anatomical and functional outcomes in 181 cases. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;121:1319–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Durand ML, Dohlman CH. Successful prevention of bacterial endophthalmitis in eyes with the Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2009;28:896–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dohlman CH, Dudenhoefer EJ, Khan BF, et al. Protection of the ocular surface after keratoprosthesis surgery: the role of soft contact lenses. CLAO J. 2002;28:72–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ciolino JB, Belin MW, Todani A, et al. Retention of the Boston Keratoprosthesis Type 1: multicenter study results. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:1195–200.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Behlau I, Martin KV, Martin JN, et al. Infectious endophthalmitis in Boston keratoprosthesis: incidence and prevention. Acta Ophthalmologica. 2014;92(7):e546–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. de la Paz MF, Stoiber J, de Rezende Couto Nascimento V, et al. Anatomical survival and visual prognosis of Boston type I keratoprosthesis in challenging cases. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252:83–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nouri M, Terada H, Alfonso EC, et al. Endophthalmitis after keratoprosthesis. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:484–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Li JY, Greiner MA, Brandt JD, et al. Long-term complications associated with glaucoma drainage devices and Boston keratoprosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;152:209–2018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Patel S, Takusagawa H, Shen L, et al. Long-term complications associated with glaucoma drainage devices and Boston keratoprosthesis (correspondence). Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154:207–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Greiner MA, Li JY, Mannis MJ. Longer-term vision outcomes and complications with the Boston Type 1 keratoprosthesis at the University of California, Davis. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:1543–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Patel AP, Wu EI, Ritterband DC, Seedor JA. Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis: the New York Eye and Ear experience. Eye. 2012;26:418–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Fintelmann RE, Maguire JI, Ho AC, et al. Characteristics of endophthalmitis in patients with the Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2009;28:877–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Goldman DR, Hubschman J-P, Aldave AJ, et al. Postoperative posterior segment complications in eyes treated with the Boston Type I keratoprosthesis. Retina. 2013;33:532–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ramchandran RS, DiLoreto DA, Chung MM, et al. Infectious endophthalmitis in adult eyes receiving Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:674–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Barnes SD, Dohlman CH, Durand ML. Fungal colonization and infection in Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2007;26:9–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Chan CC, Holland EJ. Infectious endophthalmitis after Boston Type 1 keratoprosthesis implantation. Cornea. 2012;31:346–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. de Oliveira LA, Pedreira Magalhaes F, Hirai FE, de Sousa LB. Experience with Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 in the developing world. Can J Ophthalmol. 2014;49:351–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hager JL, Phillips DL, Goins KM, et al. Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis for failed keratoplasty. Int Ophthalmol; published on line May 16, 2015. doi:10.1007/s10792-015-0078-2.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Chuang AT, Margo CE, Greenberg PB. Retinal implants: a systematic review. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98:852–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ho AC, Humayun MS, Dorn JD, et al. Long-term results from an epiretinal prosthesis to restore sight to the blind. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:1547–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Stingl K, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Besch D, et al. Artificial vision with wirelessly powered subretinal electronic implant alpha-IMS. Porc Biol Sci. 2013;280:20130077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Stingl K, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Besch D, et al. Subretinal visual implant Alpha IMS – clinical trial interim report. Vision Res. 2015;111:149–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kitiratschky VBD, Stingl K, Wilhelm B, et al. Safety evaluation of “retina implant alpha IMS” – a prospective clinical trial. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;253:381–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Bispo PJM, Haas W, Gilmore MS. Biofilms in infections in the eye. Pathogens. 2015;4:111–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Bailiff S, Leduff F, Hartmann DJ, Kodjikian L. Staphylococcus biofilm formation and structural organization on different types of intraocular lenses under in vitro flow conditions. Ophthalmic Res. 2013;50:83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Miller KV, Eisley KM, Shanks RMQ, et al. Recurrent enterococcal endophthalmitis seeded by an intraocular lens biofilm. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37:1355–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Alio JL, Toffaha BT, Pena-Garcia P, et al. Phakic intraocular lens explantation: causes in 240 cases. J Refract Surg. 2015;31:30–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Fernandes P, Gonzalez-Meijome JM, Madrid-Costa D, et al. Implantable collamer posterior chamber intraocular lenses: a review of potential complications. J Refract Surg. 2011;27(10):765–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Perez-Santonja JJ, Ruiz-Moreno JM, de la Hoz F, et al. Endophthalmitis after phakic intraocular implantation to correct high myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;25:1295–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Al-Abdullah AA, Al-Falah M, Al-Rashaed S, et al. Endophthalmitis caused by Rhizobium radiobacter after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation to correct myopia. J Refract Surg. 2015;31:561–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Couto C, Rossetti S, Schlaen A, et al. Chronic postoperative Mycobacterium gordonae endophthalmitis in a patient with phakic intraocular lens. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2013;21:491–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Jalili M, Hashemi H, Jabarvand M, Tabatabai SA. Aspergillus endophthalmitis in one eye subsequent to bilateral anterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation. J Refract Surg. 2012;28:363–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Allan BD, Argeles-Sabate I, Mamalis N. Endophthalmitis rates after implantation of the intraocular Collamer lens: survey of users between 1998 and 2006. J Refract Surg. 2009;35:766–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Dugel PU, Bandello F, Loewenstein A. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in the treatment of diabetic macular edema. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:1321–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Boyer DS, Young HY, Belfort Jr R, et al. Three-year, randomized, sham-controlled trial of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:1904–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Ryder SJ, Iannetta D, Bhaleeya S, Kiss S. Efficacy and tolerability of bilateral sustained-release dexamethasone intravitreal implants for the treatment of non-infectious posterior uveitis and macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:1109–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Wellik SR, Dale EA. A review of the iStent trabecular micro-bypass stent: safety and efficacy. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:677–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Choyce P. Intraocular Lenses and Implants. London: HK: Lewis. 1964;27–32:162–78.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Srinivasan S, Ting DSJ, Snyder ME, et al. Prosthetic iris devices. Can J Ophthalmol. 2014;49:6–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Sundmacher R, Reinhard T, Althaus C. Black-diaphragm intraocular lens for correction of aniridia. Ophthalmic Surg. 1994;25:180–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. FederalTrials. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00812708?term=artificial+iris&rank=1. Accessed Aug 2015.

  75. Thompson CG, Fawzy K, Bryce IG, Noble BA. Implantation of a black diaphragm intraocular lens for traumatic aniridia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;25:808–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Hoquet A, Ritterband D, Koplin R, et al. Serious ocular complications of cosmetic iris implants in 14 eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:387–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Shweikh Y, Ameen S, Mearza A. Complications secondary to cosmetic artificial iris anterior chamber implants: a case report. BMC Ophthalmol. 2015;15:97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Boyer D, Freund KB, Levy MH, Garg S. Long-term (60-month) results for the implantable miniature telescope: efficacy and safety outcomes stratified by age in patients with end-stage age-related macular edema. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:1099–107.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Nemet AY, Ferencz JR, Segal O, et al. Orbital cellulitis following silicone-sponge scleral buckles. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:2147–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Chhablani J, Nayak S, Jindal A, et al. Scleral buckle infections: microbiological spectrum and antimicrobial susceptibility. J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect. 2013;3:67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Mohan N, Kar S, Padhi TR, et al. Changing profile of organisms causing scleral buckle infections. Retina. 2014;34:247–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Rubenstein TJ, Choudhary MM, Modi YS, et al. Globe loss from intraocular invasion of MIRAgel scleral buckle components. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015, July 29. Epub ahead of print.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Mears KA, Sobel RK, Shriver EM, et al. Endophthalmitis secondary to globe penetration from hydrogel scleral buckle. Int J Ophthalmol. 2014;7:585–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Oshima Y, Ohji M, Inoue Y, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections after scleral buckle procedures for retinal detachments associated with atopic dermatitis. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:142–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Cope JR, Collier SA, Rao MM, et al. Contact lens wearer demographics and risk behaviors for contact lens-related eye infections – United States, 2014. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64:865–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Henry CR, Flynn Jr HW, Miller D, et al. Infectious keratitis progressing to endophthalmitis: a 15-year study of microbiology, associated factors, and clinical outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:2443–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Chang DC, Grant GB, O’Donnell K, et al. Multistate outbreak of Fusarium keratitis associated with use of a contact lens solution. JAMA. 2006;296:953–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Rosenberg KD, Flynn Jr HW, Alfonso EC, Miller D. Fusarium endophthalmitis following keratitis associated with contact lenses. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2006;37:310–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Kamyer R, Weizer JS, de Paula FH, et al. Glaucoma associated with Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2012;31:134–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Lekhanont K, Thaweesit P, Muntham D, et al. Medium-term outcomes of Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis implantation in Bangkok, Thailand. Cornea. 2014;33:1312–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Huh ES, Aref AA, Vajaranani TS, et al. Outcomes of pars plana glaucoma drainage implant in Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis surgery. J Glaucoma. 2014;23:e39–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Robert M-C, Pomerleau V, Harissi-Dagher M. Complications associated with Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 and glaucoma drainage devices. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:573–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Robert M-C, Moussally K, Harissi-Dagher M. Review of endophthalmitis following Boston keratoprosthesis type 1. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:776–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Chhablani J, Panchal B, Das T, et al. Endophthalmitis in Boston keratoprosthesis: case series and review of literature. Int Ophthalmol. 2015;35:149–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Dohlman CH, Cruzat A, White M. The Boston keratoprosthesis 2014: a step in the evolution of artificial corneas. Spektrum der Augenheilkunde. 2014;28:226–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, and Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Marlene L. Durand MD

  2. Infectious Disease Service, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Infectious Disease Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Marlene L. Durand MD

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Claes H. Dohlman MD, PhD

  4. Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Claes H. Dohlman MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Marlene L. Durand MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claes H. Dohlman MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marlene L. Durand MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Marlene L. Durand

  2. Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Joan W. Miller

  3. Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA

    Lucy H. Young

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Durand, M.L., Dohlman, C.H. (2016). Device-Related Endophthalmitis. In: Durand, M., Miller, J., Young, L. (eds) Endophthalmitis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29231-1_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29231-1_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29229-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29231-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation