4.4 Article

Evaluation of Microbial Flora in Eyes With a Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis

期刊

CORNEA
卷 32, 期 12, 页码 1537-1539

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3182a81992

关键词

keratoprosthesis; K-Pro; infectious endophthalmitis; K-Pro culture; keratoprosthesis culture; sonication

资金

  1. Research to Prevent Blindness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose:To evaluate the microbial flora of eyes with a Boston Keratoprosthesis (K-Pro).Methods:A prospective study was performed for 17 eyes of 15 patients who underwent a K-Pro implantation between September 2005 and June 2011. Preoperative diagnoses included failed corneal grafts, limbal stem cell deficiency, chemical burns, and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. The patients used topical antibiotics after their surgery including a fluoroquinolone, polymyxin-trimethoprim, vancomycin, or a combination of the 3. The conjunctiva in the study eye was swabbed and cultured. A separate culture was taken of the contralateral eye as well. If available, the bandage contact lens was removed, and half of it was placed in thioglycolate broth, and half in 5 mL of a sterile balanced salt solution. The contact lens in the balanced salt solution was sonicated using a QSonica Q125 sonicator (Newtown, CT) for 1 minute, at an amplitude of 20%. Ten microliters of fluid was subsequently cultured.Results:Of the patients who underwent the K-Pro surgery during that time period, 15 patients with 17 eyes were able to participate in the data collection. Nine of the 17 eyes implanted with the K-Pro (53%) had positive cultures. Two of the 13 (15%) of the control swabs exhibited bacterial growth. Eight percent (1/12) of the sonicated lenses were positive on culture, whereas 4/12 (33%) of the lenses placed in thioglycolate broth were positive for organisms.Conclusions:Despite being on antibiotics, eyes implanted with the K-Pro were more likely to have a positive conjunctival culture in our cohort as compared with that of fellow eyes.

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