3.9 Article

Contact lens-associated microbial keratitis

期刊

ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE OFTALMOLOGIA
卷 71, 期 6, 页码 32-36

出版社

CONSEL BRASIL OFTALMOLOGIA
DOI: 10.1590/S0004-27492008000700007

关键词

Contact lens/adverse effects; Keratitis/microbiology; Eye infections; bacterial; Corneal ulcer; Acanthamoeba

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Contact lens-associated microbial keratitis is a severe condition with sight-threatening potential and increasing incidence. Information regarding the etiological agents is essential in guiding management and may vary geographically. The aim of this study was to analyze the microbiological results of corneal scrapings collected from patients presenting with contact lens-associated microbial keratitis. Methods: Retrospective analysis of the records of all patients who were clinically diagnosed with contact lens-associated microbial keratitis and had corneal scrapings sent to the Laboratory of Ocular Microbiology, UNIFESP/EPM during a 5-year period from January 2002 to December 2007. Results: The etiological agent was identified in 239 patients. Bacterial isolates accounted for 166 (69.46%) cases, Acanthamoeba for 95 (39.75%) cases and fungi for 4 (1.67%) cases. Among the bacterial infections, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus was demonstrated in 74 cases, while Pseudomonas spp was found in 32 patients. All coagulase negative Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas were susceptible to ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin. Resistance to gentamicin was documented in a single case of Pseudomonas. Fourth-generation flouoroquinolone resistance was not observed among Pseudomonas cases. Conclusion: Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus was the most frequent isolate, and such data must be considered when determining empiric treatment. Second-generation fluoroquinolones ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin and fourth-generation fluoroquinolones moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin showed a good antibacterial profile and therefore could be good options for initial management.

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

3.9
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