Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Case Reports
. 2018 Jan-Apr;11(1):62-64.
doi: 10.4103/ojo.OJO_69_2016.

Fungal keratitis and endophthalmitis after implantation of type 1 keratoprosthesis

Affiliations
Case Reports

Fungal keratitis and endophthalmitis after implantation of type 1 keratoprosthesis

Chintan Malhotra et al. Oman J Ophthalmol. 2018 Jan-Apr.

Abstract

A 70-year-old patient who underwent uneventful primary implantation of Auro K Pro (a Type I Boston Keratoprosthesis-based device), developed infiltrates in the deep stroma of the carrier corneal graft and exudates on the optic stem of the keratoprosthesis assembly, 6 weeks postoperatively, which subsequently progressed to endophthalmitis. Vitreous tap was positive for a panfungal polymerase chain reaction, although corneal scrapings for both Gram stain and KOH wet mount yielded negative results. Aggressive management with systemic, topical, intravitreal, and intrastromal antifungal agents resulted in an initial resolution, but residual inflammatory vitreous membranes persisted. The patient was then lost to follow-up and presented 3 months later with a total, inoperable retinal detachment. Fungal infections after keratoprosthesis implantation remain a significant concern and may be associated with poor outcomes in the developing countries due to interplay of environmental and socioeconomic factors. Management protocols may need to be modified in accordance with the prevailing conditions in these regions.

Keywords: Endophthalmitis; fungal infections; keratitis; keratoprosthesis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Auro K pro (b) clearly visible posterior pole (c) infiltrates at back of carrier graft 6-weeks postoperatively (d) fluffy deposits on keratoprosthesis stem (e) increasing infiltrates after 3 days of antifungal therapy (f) development of vitritis (g) vitreous tap polymerase chain reaction positive for panfungal genome (h) dotted line represents site of intrastromal injection of amphotericin B for confluent infiltrates (i and j) decreasing infiltrates after intravitreal and intrastromal amphotericin B (k) amniotic membrane graft for nonhealing epithelial defect (l) closed funnel retinal detachment at the last follow-up

Similar articles

References

    1. Ilhan-Sarac O, Akpek EK. Current concepts and techniques in keratoprosthesis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2005;16:246–50. - PubMed
    1. Yaghouti F, Nouri M, Abad JC, Power WJ, Doane MG, Dohlman CH, et al. Keratoprosthesis: Preoperative prognostic categories. Cornea. 2001;20:19–23. - PubMed
    1. Aldave AJ, Kamal KM, Vo RC, Yu F. The Boston type I keratoprosthesis: Improving outcomes and expanding indications. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:640–51. - PubMed
    1. Ciolino JB, Belin MW, Todani A, Al-Arfaj K, Rudnisky CJ. Boston Keratoprosthesis Type 1 Study Group. Retention of the Boston keratoprosthesis type 1: Multicenter study results. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:1195–200. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barnes SD, Dohlman CH, Durand ML. Fungal colonization and infection in Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2007;26:9–15. - PubMed

Publication types