4.4 Article

Proteus mirabilis Keratitis: Risk Factors, Clinical Features, Treatment Outcomes, and Microbiological Characteristics

期刊

CORNEA
卷 40, 期 6, 页码 704-709

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS

关键词

Proteus mirabilis keratitis; keratitis; treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Proteus mirabilis keratitis is an uncommon microbial infection, with poor ocular surface and contact lens use being common risk factors. Empiric treatment with fortified antibiotics or fluoroquinolones appeared to provide effective coverage for Proteus mirabilis.
Purpose: To characterize the risk factors, clinical presentations, management choices, and outcomes of Proteus mirabilis keratitis. Methods: In this retrospective study, 26 culture-proven cases of P. mirabilis infections were diagnosed and treated between 1998 and 2019 at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Medical records were available for 14 keratitis cases and were reviewed for demographic information, ocular risk factors, and treatment outcomes. Results: Sixteen eyes of 14 patients were included in the study. The average age was 47.8 +/- 19.3 years, with a median follow-up time of 6 months. The most common ocular risk factors were poor ocular surface and contact lens use in 57.1% and 42.9% of cases, respectively. Eleven of the 14 patients (78.6%) had positive corneal cultures, and 13 of the 14 patients (92.9%) had positive conjunctiva or eyelid cultures. All isolates were susceptible to ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, moxifloxacin, gatifloxacin, and cefazolin. Surgical intervention was required in 4 patients (28.6%). Average LogMAR visual acuity was 1.3 +/- 1.0 at presentation and 0.9 6 +/- 1.0 at the most recent follow-up visit. Conclusions: Proteus mirabilis is an uncommon cause of microbial keratitis. Patients with poor ocular surface and those who use contact lens are at increased risk for developing this cause of keratitis. Empiric treatment with fortified antibiotics or fluoroquinolones seemed to provide effective coverage for P. mirabilis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据