4.4 Article

Spectrum of fungal keratitis at Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Journal

CORNEA
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages 307-312

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00003226-200005000-00010

Keywords

Candida albicans; contact lens; corneal ulcer; fungal ocular infection; fusarium; keratitis; ocular mycosis; penetrating keratoplasty

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. To report the spectrum of fungal keratitis at Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia. Methods. We reviewed the records of 24 cases of culture-positive fungal keratitis treated from January 1991 to March 1999 at Wills Eye Hospital. Risk factors, fungal identification, antifungal treatment, and outcomes were evaluated. Results. The study included 24 eyes (24 patients). Fourteen patients (58.3%) were female. The mean age was 59 years (range, 19-86 years). Predisposing factors included chronic ocular surface disease (41.7%), contact lens wear (29.2%), atopic disease (16.7%), topical steroid use (16.7%), and ocular trauma (8.3%). Early identification of fungal elements was achieved by staining of corneal scrapings in 18 cases (75%). Half of the cases (12 eyes) had corneal infections caused by yeast, and the other half by filamentous fungi. Candida albicans was the most commonly isolated organism (45.8%), followed by Fusarium sp (25%). Natamycin and amphotericin B were the topical antifungals most frequently used, while systemic treatment commonly used included fluconazole, ketoconazole, or itraconazole. Six patients (25%) bad penetrating keratoplasty during the acute stage of infection. After a mean follow-up of nine months, 13 eyes (54.1%) had the best corrected visual acuity 20/100 or better. Conclusions. In contrast to other studies from the northern United States, we found Fusarium sp the most commonly isolated filamentous fungus. In our series, C. albicans was the most frequent cause of fungal keratitis, and a past history of ocular trauma was uncommon.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available