International Ophthalmology

, Volume 39, Issue 7, pp 1621–1626 | Cite as

Predicting visual function after an ocular bee sting

  • Masih Ahmed
  • Chang Sup LeeEmail author
  • Brian McMillan
  • Priyanka Jain
  • Lee Wiley
  • J. Vernon Odom
  • Monique Leys
Case Report



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


Case report and literature review.


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.


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.


Ocular bee sting Toxic optic neuropathy Electroretinogram Visual evoked potential 



We thank Anthony Viti, MD, for his assistance.


No funding was received for this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

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.


  1. 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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gurlu VP, Erda N (2006) Corneal bee sting-induced endothelial changes. Cornea 25(8):981–983. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Teoh SC, Lee JJ, Fam HB (2005) Corneal honeybee sting. Can J Ophthalmol 40(4):469–471. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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):328–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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):662–664CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    King TP, Spangfort MD (2000) Structure and biology of stinging insect venom allergens. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 123(2):99–106. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen CJ, Richardson CD (1986) Bee sting-induced ocular changes. Ann Ophthalmol 18(10):285–286PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smolin G, Wong I (1982) Bee sting of the cornea: case report. Ann Ophthalmol 14(4):342–343PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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):107–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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):181–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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):291–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maltzman JS, Lee AG, Miller NR (2000) Optic neuropathy occurring after bee and wasp sting. Ophthalmology 107(1):193–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Choi MY, Cho SH (2000) Optic neuritis after bee sting. Korean J Ophthalmol 14(1):49–52. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Song HS, Wray SH (1991) Bee sting optic neuritis. A case report with visual evoked potentials. J Clin Neuroophthalmol 11(1):45–49PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.West Virginia University Eye InstituteMorgantownUSA
  2. 2.Green ClinicRustonUSA

Personalised recommendations