4.5 Article

The clinical and microbiological features and outcomes of fungal keratitis over 9 years in Sydney, Australia

Journal

MYCOSES
Volume 63, Issue 1, Pages 43-51

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/myc.13009

Keywords

antifungal medications; corneal scrape; corneal ulcer; filamentous fungi; fungal keratitis; in vivo confocal; penetrating keratoplasty; yeast

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To describe the clinical features, management and outcomes in patients with fungal keratitis at the Sydney Eye Hospital, Australia, over a 9-year period to guide appropriate initial therapy. A retrospective case review was conducted. Patients diagnosed with fungal keratitis from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2017 were identified from hospital coding and pathology databases. Data were extracted from the medical records. A total of 55 episodes from 51 patients were included. Mean age was 60 +/- 20 years (range: 19-91 years), and 33 were male. The fungal species was not identified in two patients. Predisposing factors included ocular surface disease in 17 eyes (32%); corneal disease, 15 (28%); corneal trauma, 12 (23%); and contact lens wear, 13 (24.5%). Fusarium spp. (15, 27%) and Candida parapsilosis (10, 18%) were the most common isolates. The median visual acuity at presentation was 1.3 logMAR (range: 0 to 3) and after treatment 0.7 logMAR (range: -0.02 to 3) (P = .008). Despite medical therapy, most commonly with natamycin and topical and oral voriconazole, surgical intervention was required in 21 eyes (40%); including antifungal injections in 9 (16%); corneal transplantation, 16 (30%); evisceration, 2 (4%); and enucleation, 1 (2%). A poor visual outcome was recorded in 27 of 43 (63%) patients. Fungal keratitis remains a cause of significant ocular morbidity; the majority of patients face a poor outcome despite intense medical and at times surgical treatment. In our setting, fungal keratitis was more commonly associated with corneal or ocular surface disease.

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