4.0 Article

Corneal Ulcer Treated with 0.66% Nanoemulsion Povidone-Iodine: A Case Report

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CASE REPORTS
卷 21, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

INT SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION, INC
DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.919822

关键词

Cornea; Eye Infections; Povidone-Iodine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Unusual clinical course Background: Corneal ulceration is caused by various corneal diseases, including infection, inflammatory disease, neurotrophic keratitis, dry-eye, autoimmune disease, and blepharitis. Treatment should be based on the etiology. In cases of infection, corneal scraping and pathogen culture should be carried out before treatment. Bacterial pathogens are the most common etiology, but it can be caused also by viruses, fungi, and protozoa. Quinolones are the first-line drug for bacterial keratitis, but the treatment should be changed according to the culture and drug sensitivity test results. The purpose of this case report is to show the resolution of a corneal ulcer case unusually treated with 0.66% povidone-iodine (PVP-I). Case Report: A 61-year-old man showed signs of pain, redness, watering, and photophobia in the left eye (oculus sinister; OS) over a 5-month period, starting as conjunctivitis and degenerating into keratitis. Clinical examination revealed an ulcer in the inferior cornea and biomicroscopy analysis confirmed this diagnosis. Previous therapies, starting with antibiotics first and then antiviral medications, were unable to control the signs and symptoms. Therefore, treatment with 0.66% PVP-I, based on its antiseptic activity, was administered 3 times a day for 4 weeks. Conclusions: PVP-I 0.66%, an antiseptic with broad-spectrum activity against bacteria, fungi, viruses, and protozoa, was found to be effective in treating the signs and symptoms of the ulcer until its complete closure and resolution. It could be a useful therapeutic tool when the pathogen is unknown, as in this case. Its use for treatment of corneal ulcers warrants further investigation.

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

4.0
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