4.5 Article

Acanthamoeba keratitis: 10-Year study at a tertiary eye care center in Hong Kong

Journal

CONTACT LENS & ANTERIOR EYE
Volume 38, Issue 2, Pages 99-103

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2014.11.146

Keywords

Acanthamoeba keratitis; Treatment; Outcome; Keratitis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To review clinical presentation, investigation results and treatment outcomes of patients with Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) at a tertiary eye care center in Hong Kong. Methods: A retrospective case review was performed for cases of Acanthamoeba keratitis diagnosed at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong over a 10-year period. Results: Fifteen eyes of 13 patients were treated for AK over the study period. 12 out of 13 patients (92.3%) were contact lens wearers. All patients presented with blurred vision and pain, while 9 patients (69.2%) presented with redness of the affected eye. The most common ocular sign was diffuse corneal haze or ground glass appearance of the cornea (69.2%) followed by anterior chamber inflammation (53.8%), ring infiltrate (38.4%), epithelial defect (38.4%), perineural infiltrates (30.7%) and satellite lesions (15.3%). Acanthamoeba was detected on corneal scrapings in 4 eyes and on confocal microscopy in 4 eyes. The mean duration of treatment was 140 +/- 50.8 days. Surgical intervention was required in two cases due to uncontrolled eye infection and progressive corneal thinning. All patients had improvement in visual acuity after treatment. Conclusions: Patients with AK exhibited a wide spectrum of clinical characteristics. Improper care and usage of contact lenses is a major risk factor for Acanthamoeba keratitis. Diagnosis of AK remained a challenge. Timely diagnosis and appropriate treatment with amoebicidal drugs can improve the outcomes of Acanthamoeba keratitis. (C) 2014 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available