Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The influence of microorganisms on early relapses after external dacryocystorhinostomy

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

Abstract

Purpose

Understanding the influence of microorganisms in patients with acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) and investigating their effect on recurrence after external dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR).

Methods

This prospective study included 50 patients. Evaluations were made before, on the first postoperative day and monthly after DCR. Nasolacrimal silicon tubes (NST) were removed after three months. Before the DCR, swab samples were taken from both hands and lower conjunctival fornices and from the lacrimal sac during the first DCR and from the relapsed cases during the second DCR.

Results

Growth was observed in 90 (45%) cultures out of 200 and a total of 23 different strains were identified altogether. Staphylococcus aureus (40%) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (28%) were dominantly isolated which were all resistant to penicillin, tetracycline and erythromycin. Lacrimal syringing (LS) was successful in patients (100%) on the first postoperative day. After three months, before NST removal, purulent discharge from the punctum was observed in five patients, and blockage was detected by LS. S. pneumoniae was isolated from all five patients’ obstructed side conjunctival cultures. Additionally, from their lacrimal sac, S. pneumoniae (4 patients), Capnocytophaga gingivalis, and Candida spp. (1 patient) strains were isolated. S pneumoniae was isolated in four out of five patients from the ipsilateral conjunctival and lacrimal sac cultures which obtained from the subsequent DCR.

Conclusion

Our results showed that S. pneumoniae was an isolated and persistent strain in cases with early recurrence even after a successful DCR.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barmettler A et al (2013) Current preferences and reported success rates in dacryocystorhinostomy amongst ASOPRS members. Orbit 32(1):20–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aytogan H, Doran MA, Ayintap E (2022) Outcomes of external dacryocystorhinostomy under general and local anesthetics in a tertiary clinic. Beyoglu Eye J 7(1):25–29

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Vinciguerra A et al (2022) Endoscopic and external dacryocystorhinostomy: a therapeutic proposal for distal acquired lacrimal obstructions. Eur J Ophthalmol 2022:11206721221132746

    Google Scholar 

  4. Yu B et al (2022) Management of chronic dacryocystitis cases after failed external dacryocystorhinostomy using endoscopic technique with a novel lacrimal ostium stent. Int J Ophthalmol 15(3):413–419

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Özcan G, Hoşal BM, Gerçeker D (2021) The microbiological profile of bicanalicular silicone tubes placed during external dacryocystorhinostomy. Turk J Ophthalmol 51(4):212–217

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ali MJ, Manderwad G, Naik MN (2013) The microbiological spectrum and antibiotic sensitivity profile of extubated silicone stents following dacryocystorhinostomy. Orbit 32(5):298–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim SE et al (2012) Clinical significance of microbial growth on the surfaces of silicone tubes removed from dacryocystorhinostomy patients. Am J Ophthalmol 153(2):253-257.e1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Balikoglu-Yilmaz M et al (2016) Bacteriological profile in conjunctival, lacrimal sac, and nasal specimens and conjunctival normalization time following external, endoscopic, and transcanalicular multidiode laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Arq Bras Oftalmol 79(3):163–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Munk PL, Lin DT, Morris DC (1990) Epiphora: treatment by means of dacryocystoplasty with balloon dilation of the nasolacrimal drainage apparatus. Radiology 177(3):687–690

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Engelsberg K, Sadlon M (2022) First-onset dacryocystitis: characterization, treatment, and prognosis. Ophthalmol Ther 11(5):1735–1741

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Gómez-Lus ML et al (2000) Pharmacodynamic basis for the use of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid in respiratory infections due to Streptococcus pneumoniae: In vitro studies in an experimental model. Rev Esp Quimioter 13(3):306–313

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee MJ et al (2017) Surgical outcomes of external dacryocystorhinostomy and risk factors for functional failure: a 10-year experience. Eye (Lond) 31(5):691–697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hiraoka T et al (2021) Assessment of conjunctival flora in eyes with lacrimal passage obstruction before and after successful dacryoendoscopic recanalisation. Br J Ophthalmol 105(7):909–913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Aggarwal R et al (1992) Bacteriology of ophthalmic infections with special reference to anaerobes. Indian J Med Res 95:148–151

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu C et al (2021) Bacterial agents and changes in drug susceptibilities in cases of chronic dacryocystitis. Southern China Int Ophthalmol 41(1):1–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ali MJ (2021) Metagenomics of the lacrimal sac in primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction: the Lacriome paper 1. Br J Ophthalmol 107(1):147–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Luo B et al (2021) The microbiologic spectrum of dacryocystitis. BMC Ophthalmol 21(1):29

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Chung SY et al (2019) The microbiologic profile of dacryocystitis. Orbit 38(1):72–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Eshraghi B et al (2014) Microbiologic spectrum of acute and chronic dacryocystitis. Int J Ophthalmol 7(5):864–867

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Mills DM et al (2007) The microbiologic spectrum of dacryocystitis: a national study of acute versus chronic infection. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 23(4):302–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bharathi MJ et al (2008) Comparative bacteriology of acute and chronic dacryocystitis. Eye (Lond) 22(7):953–960

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Owji N, Zareifard A (2018) Bacterial flora of the conjunctiva one year after dacryocystorhinostomy. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 25(1):35–39

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Amin RM et al (2013) Pathological, immunohistochemical and microbiologicalal analysis of lacrimal sac biopsies in patients with chronic dacrocystitis. Int J Ophthalmol 6(6):817–826

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Lawal FJ, Baer SL (2021) Bacteremia after upper gastrointestinal bleeding in immunocompromised patient. J Investig Med High Impact Case Rep 9:23247096211020670

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Evans AR, Strong JD, Buck AC (1991) Combined anaerobic and coliform infection in acute dacryocystitis. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 28(5):292

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McKeag D et al (2002) Combined coliform and anaerobic infection of the lacrimal sac. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 30(1):52–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Purgason PA, Hornblass A, Loeffler M (1992) Atypical presentation of fungal dacryocystitis. A report of two cases Ophthalmology 99(9):1430–1432

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Enosi Tuipulotu D et al (2021) Bacillus cereus: epidemiology, virulence factors, and host-pathogen interactions. Trends Microbiol 29(5):458–471

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lin Y, Briandet R, Kovács Á (2022) sensu lato biofilm formation and its ecological importance. Biofilm 4:100070

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Severn MM et al (2022) The Ubiquitous Human Skin Commensal Staphylococcus hominis Protects against Opportunistic Pathogens. mBio. 13(3):e0093022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Yin W et al (2019) Biofilms: the microbial “protective clothing” in extreme environments. Int J Mol Sci 20(14):3423

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Jensen P et al (2010) The immune system vs Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 59(3):292–305

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Uruén C et al (2020) Biofilms as promoters of bacterial antibiotic resistance and tolerance. Antibiotics (Basel) 10(1):3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Allegrucci M, Sauer K (2008) Formation of streptococcus pneumoniae non-phase-variable colony variants is due to increased mutation frequency present under biofilm growth conditions. J Bacteriol 190(19):6330–6339

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was presented as a poster at the 56th Turkish Ophthalmology Society National Congress (November 2–6, 2018, Antalya, Turkey)

Funding

No funding was received for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Health Science, Ulucanlar Eye Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Nazan Acar Eser, Kubra Serbest Ceylanoglu & Emine Malkoc Sen

  2. Ankara University School of Medicine Department of Medical Microbiology and İbn-I Sina Hospital Central Microbiology Laboratory, Ankara, Turkey

    Ebru Evren

Authors
  1. Nazan Acar Eser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kubra Serbest Ceylanoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emine Malkoc Sen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ebru Evren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Nazan Acar Eser wrote the main manuscript Nazan Acar Eser, Kubra Serbest Ceylanoglu and Emine Malkoc Sen performed the surgeries Ebru Evren made the microbiological assesments

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nazan Acar Eser.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

This study was conducted in a single hospital and was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from each participant and the Clinical Research Ethics Committee approval from Ankara Bilkent City Hospital was obtained for the study with the decision number E1-22–2311.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Acar Eser, N., Ceylanoglu, K.S., Malkoc Sen, E. et al. The influence of microorganisms on early relapses after external dacryocystorhinostomy. Int Ophthalmol 43, 3097–3106 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-023-02709-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-023-02709-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation