Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Predicting visual function after an ocular bee sting

  • Case Report
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To report a case of toxic optic neuropathy caused by an ocular bee sting.

Methods

Case report and literature review.

Results

A 44-year-old female presented with no light perception vision 2 days after a corneal bee sting in her right eye. She was found to have diffuse cornea edema with overlying epithelial defect and a pinpoint penetrating laceration at 6 o’clock. There was an intense green color to the cornea. The pupil was fixed and dilated with an afferent pupillary defect. A small hyphema was seen, and a dense white cataract had formed. A diagnosis of toxic endophthalmitis with associated toxic optic neuropathy was made. The patient underwent pars plana vitrectomy and lensectomy with anterior chamber washout. She was also placed on systemic broad-spectrum antibiotics. She had noted clinical improvement over the course of her hospitalization and was discharged with light perception vision. A corneal opacity precluded viewing of the fundus. We utilized ganzfeld electroretinography and flash visual evoked potentials (2 and 10 Hz) to assess the visual function. Both tests were normal and predicted improvement following restorative surgery. She underwent a secondary lens implantation with penetrating keratoplasty 7 months later. This was followed by an epiretinal membrane peel 1 year after the bee sting. Her best corrected visual acuity improved to 20/80.

Conclusion

Toxic endophthalmitis and toxic optic neuropathy can be complications of ocular bee sting. We discuss the management of this rare occurrence and the role of electroretinographic testing and visual evoked potentials in predicting visual outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Steen CJ, Janniger CK, Schutzer SE, Schwartz RA (2005) Insect sting reactions to bees, wasps, and ants. Int J Dermatol 44(2):91–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-4632.2005.02391.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gurlu VP, Erda N (2006) Corneal bee sting-induced endothelial changes. Cornea 25(8):981–983. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ico.0000226364.57172.72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Roomizadeh P, Razmjoo H, Abtahi MA, Abtahi SH (2013) Management of corneal bee sting: is surgical removal of a retained stinger always indicated? Int Ophthalmol 33(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-012-9655-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Teoh SC, Lee JJ, Fam HB (2005) Corneal honeybee sting. Can J Ophthalmol 40(4):469–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-4182(05)80008-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Arcieri ES, Franca ET, de Oliveria HB, De Abreu Ferreira L, Ferreira MA, Rocha FJ (2002) Ocular lesions arising after stings by hymenopteran insects. Cornea 21(3):328–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gilboa M, Gdal-On M, Zonis S (1977) Bee and wasp stings of the eye. Retained intralenticular wasp sting: a case report. Br J Ophthalmol 61(10):662–664

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. King TP, Spangfort MD (2000) Structure and biology of stinging insect venom allergens. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 123(2):99–106. https://doi.org/10.1159/000024440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen CJ, Richardson CD (1986) Bee sting-induced ocular changes. Ann Ophthalmol 18(10):285–286

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Smolin G, Wong I (1982) Bee sting of the cornea: case report. Ann Ophthalmol 14(4):342–343

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Odom JV, Bach M, Brigell M, Holder GE, McCulloch DL, Mizota A, Tormene AP, International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision Annual Course (2016) ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials: (2016 update). Doc Ophthalmol 133(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-016-9553-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Marmor MF, Holder GE, Seeliger MW, Yamamoto S, International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision Annual Course (2004) Standard for clinical electroretinography (2004 update). Doc Ophthalmol 108(2):107–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cavender SA, Hobson RR, Chao GM, Weinstein GW, Odom JV (1992) Comparison of preoperative 10-Hz visual evoked potentials to contrast sensitivity and visual acuity after cataract extraction. Doc Ophthalmol 81(2):181–188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Odom JV, Hobson R, Coldren JT, Chao GM, Weinstein GW (1987) 10-Hz flash visual evoked potentials predict post-cataract extraction visual acuity. Doc Ophthalmol 66(4):291–299

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim JM, Kang SJ, Kim MK, Wee WR, Lee JH (2011) Corneal wasp sting accompanied by optic neuropathy and retinopathy. Jpn J Ophthalmol 55(2):165–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-010-0912-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Maltzman JS, Lee AG, Miller NR (2000) Optic neuropathy occurring after bee and wasp sting. Ophthalmology 107(1):193–195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Choi MY, Cho SH (2000) Optic neuritis after bee sting. Korean J Ophthalmol 14(1):49–52. https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2000.14.1.49

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Song HS, Wray SH (1991) Bee sting optic neuritis. A case report with visual evoked potentials. J Clin Neuroophthalmol 11(1):45–49

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Anthony Viti, MD, for his assistance.

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chang Sup Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this paper.

Human and animal rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahmed, M., Lee, C.S., McMillan, B. et al. Predicting visual function after an ocular bee sting. Int Ophthalmol 39, 1621–1626 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-0978-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-0978-z

Keywords

Navigation