Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The use of in vivo confocal microscopy to track treatment success in fungal keratitis and to differentiate between Fusarium and Aspergillus keratitis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the usefulness of serial in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) examinations to measure hyphal density for monitoring the treatment success among patients with fungal keratitis, and to compare the hyphal diameter as well as branching angle as a way of differentiation between Aspergillus and Fusarium species observed in IVCM.

Study design

Prospective nonrandomized study.

Patients and methods

The study was conducted from February 2015 to September 2016. Hyphal diameter, density and branching angle measurements were performed using IVCM at admission and on a weekly basis for at least 2 weeks after the start of treatment.

Results

During the period of study, 65 patients with culture-confirmed fungal keratitis were recruited. Of them, 40 were culture-positive for Fusarium spp. and 25 patients for Aspergillus spp. Before the start of treatment, the mean branching angle did not differ between the two species and the mean hyphal diameter was statistically higher for Aspergillus spp. (p = 0.029). Two weeks after the start of treatment, the mean hyphal diameter was statistically lower (p < 0.001) in the treatment failure group. Also the hyphal density significantly decreased with successful treatment (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Decreasing hyphal density in serial IVCMs might be used as an indicator to predict the successful response of fungal ulcers to treatment. Branching angle is not different between Aspergillus and Fusarium keratitis. The mean hyphal diameter is significantly lower in the treatment failure group.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Takezawa Y, Shiraishi A, Noda E et al (2010) Effectiveness of in vivo confocal microscopy in detecting filamentous fungi during clinical course of fungal keratitis. Cornea 29(12):1346–1352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chidambaram JD, Prajna NV, Larke N, Macleod D, Srikanthi P, Lanjewar S (2017) In vivo confocal microscopy appearance of Fusarium and Aspergillus species in fungal keratitis. Br J Ophthalmol 101(8):1119–1123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Iyer SA, Tuli SS, Wagoner RC (2006) Fungal keratitis: emerging trends and treatment outcomes. Eye Contact Lens 32:267–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shukla PK, Kumar M, Keshava GB (2008) Mycotic keratitis: an overview of diagnosis and therapy. Mycoses 51(3):183–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sun CQ, Lalitha P, Prajna NV et al (2014) Association between in vitro susceptibility to natamycin and voriconazole and clinical outcomes in fungal keratitis. Ophthalmology 121(8):1495–1500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mahmoudi S, Masoomi A, Ahmadikia K et al (2018) Fungal keratitis: an overview of clinical and laboratory aspects. Mycoses 61(12):916–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/myc.12822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Winchester K, Mathers WD, Sutphin JE (1997) Diagnosis of Aspergillus keratitis in vivo with confocal microscopy. Cornea 16(1):27–31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Avunduk AM, Beuerman RW, Varnell ED, Kaufman HE (2003) Confocal microscopy of Aspergillus fumigatus keratitis. Br J Ophthalmol 87(4):409–410

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brasnu E, Bourcier T, Dupas B et al (2007) In vivo confocal microscopy in fungal keratitis. Br J Ophthalmol 91(5):588–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee S, Yun NR, Kim KH et al (2010) Discrepancy between histology and culture in filamentous fungal infections. Med Mycol 48(6):886–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schofield CM, Murray CK, Horvath EE et al (2007) Correlation of culture with histopathology in fungal burn wound colonization and infection. Burns 33(3):341–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Thomas PA (2003) Current perspectives on ophthalmic mycoses. Clin Microbiol Rev 16(4):730–797

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Zbiba W, Baba A, Bouayed E, Abdessalem N, Daldoul A (2016) A 5-year retrospective review of fungal keratitis in the region of Cap Bon. J Fr Ophtalmol 39(10):843–848

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rautaraya B, Sharma S, Kar S, Das S, Sahu SK (2011) Diagnosis and treatment outcome of mycotic keratitis at a tertiary eye care center in eastern India. BMC Ophthalmol 11:39

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Punia RS, Kundu R, Chander J, Arya SK, Handa U, Mohan H (2014) Spectrum of fungal keratitis: clinicopathologic study of 44 cases. Int J Ophthalmol 7(1):114–117

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Prajna NV, Krishnan T, Mascarenhas J et al (2012) Predictors of outcome in fungal keratitis. Eye 26(9):1226–1231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ray KJ, Prajna NV, Lalitha P et al (2018) The significance of repeat cultures in the treatment of severe fungal keratitis. Am J Ophthalmol 189:41–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors should thank Mrs. Kasiri and Dr. Abedini because of their effort in obtaining confocal sequence imaging and microbiologic assessment, respectively.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eye Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Seyed Ali Tabatabaei, Mohammad Soleimani, Seyed Mehdi Tabatabaei, Amir Houshang Beheshtnejad & Niloufar Valipour

  2. Department of Medical Parasitology and Mycology, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Shahram Mahmoudi

  3. Students’ Scientific Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Shahram Mahmoudi

Authors
  1. Seyed Ali Tabatabaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad Soleimani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seyed Mehdi Tabatabaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amir Houshang Beheshtnejad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Niloufar Valipour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shahram Mahmoudi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Soleimani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

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

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tabatabaei, S.A., Soleimani, M., Tabatabaei, S.M. et al. The use of in vivo confocal microscopy to track treatment success in fungal keratitis and to differentiate between Fusarium and Aspergillus keratitis. Int Ophthalmol 40, 483–491 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-019-01209-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-019-01209-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation