Cargando…

An Evaluation of a Simplified Impression Membrane Sampling Method for the Diagnosis of Microbial Keratitis

The purpose of this study was to compare bacterial isolation rate using a corneal impression membrane (CIM) and a sharp instrument for obtaining corneal samples from patients with suspected microbial keratitis (MK). Data was retrospectively collected for all patients that had corneal samples taken f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Somerville, Tobi F., Herbert, Rose, Neal, Timothy, Horsburgh, Malcolm, Kaye, Stephen B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8658700/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34884373
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10235671
_version_ 1784612792195612672
author Somerville, Tobi F.
Herbert, Rose
Neal, Timothy
Horsburgh, Malcolm
Kaye, Stephen B.
author_facet Somerville, Tobi F.
Herbert, Rose
Neal, Timothy
Horsburgh, Malcolm
Kaye, Stephen B.
author_sort Somerville, Tobi F.
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to compare bacterial isolation rate using a corneal impression membrane (CIM) and a sharp instrument for obtaining corneal samples from patients with suspected microbial keratitis (MK). Data was retrospectively collected for all patients that had corneal samples taken for presumed MK between May 2014 and May 2020. Prior to May 2017 samples were collected by scraping the edges of the ulcer with a blade. From May 2017, samples were collected by placing a CIM (Millicell cell culture insert) against the ulcer. All corneal samples were processed using the same conventional diagnostic culture method. A total of 3099 corneal samples were included, of which 1214 (39.2%) were corneal scrapes and 1885 (60.9%) CIMs. Microorganisms were isolated from 235 (19.4%) and 1229 (65.2%) cases using a corneal scrape and CIM, respectively (p < 0.001). Of routinely described pathogenic microorganisms, there were significant increases in the isolations of S. aureus (2.4% to 11.3%) and Serratia (0.5% to 1.7%) using the CIM and no significant changes in the isolations of S. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa. No significant differences were seen between the isolation rates of fungi or Acanthamoeba species. There was a significant increase in the isolation rates of other Streptococcal species (0.7% to 6.9%) and CNS species, specifically, S. epidermidis (2.1% to 26.2%), S. capitis (0.4% to 2.6%) and S. warneri (0.3% to 1.6%) using the CIM. The simplified CIM sampling method is an effective method for collecting corneal samples from patients with presumed MK in clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8658700
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86587002021-12-10 An Evaluation of a Simplified Impression Membrane Sampling Method for the Diagnosis of Microbial Keratitis Somerville, Tobi F. Herbert, Rose Neal, Timothy Horsburgh, Malcolm Kaye, Stephen B. J Clin Med Article The purpose of this study was to compare bacterial isolation rate using a corneal impression membrane (CIM) and a sharp instrument for obtaining corneal samples from patients with suspected microbial keratitis (MK). Data was retrospectively collected for all patients that had corneal samples taken for presumed MK between May 2014 and May 2020. Prior to May 2017 samples were collected by scraping the edges of the ulcer with a blade. From May 2017, samples were collected by placing a CIM (Millicell cell culture insert) against the ulcer. All corneal samples were processed using the same conventional diagnostic culture method. A total of 3099 corneal samples were included, of which 1214 (39.2%) were corneal scrapes and 1885 (60.9%) CIMs. Microorganisms were isolated from 235 (19.4%) and 1229 (65.2%) cases using a corneal scrape and CIM, respectively (p < 0.001). Of routinely described pathogenic microorganisms, there were significant increases in the isolations of S. aureus (2.4% to 11.3%) and Serratia (0.5% to 1.7%) using the CIM and no significant changes in the isolations of S. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa. No significant differences were seen between the isolation rates of fungi or Acanthamoeba species. There was a significant increase in the isolation rates of other Streptococcal species (0.7% to 6.9%) and CNS species, specifically, S. epidermidis (2.1% to 26.2%), S. capitis (0.4% to 2.6%) and S. warneri (0.3% to 1.6%) using the CIM. The simplified CIM sampling method is an effective method for collecting corneal samples from patients with presumed MK in clinical practice. MDPI 2021-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8658700/ /pubmed/34884373 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10235671 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Somerville, Tobi F.
Herbert, Rose
Neal, Timothy
Horsburgh, Malcolm
Kaye, Stephen B.
An Evaluation of a Simplified Impression Membrane Sampling Method for the Diagnosis of Microbial Keratitis
title An Evaluation of a Simplified Impression Membrane Sampling Method for the Diagnosis of Microbial Keratitis
title_full An Evaluation of a Simplified Impression Membrane Sampling Method for the Diagnosis of Microbial Keratitis
title_fullStr An Evaluation of a Simplified Impression Membrane Sampling Method for the Diagnosis of Microbial Keratitis
title_full_unstemmed An Evaluation of a Simplified Impression Membrane Sampling Method for the Diagnosis of Microbial Keratitis
title_short An Evaluation of a Simplified Impression Membrane Sampling Method for the Diagnosis of Microbial Keratitis
title_sort evaluation of a simplified impression membrane sampling method for the diagnosis of microbial keratitis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8658700/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34884373
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10235671
work_keys_str_mv AT somervilletobif anevaluationofasimplifiedimpressionmembranesamplingmethodforthediagnosisofmicrobialkeratitis
AT herbertrose anevaluationofasimplifiedimpressionmembranesamplingmethodforthediagnosisofmicrobialkeratitis
AT nealtimothy anevaluationofasimplifiedimpressionmembranesamplingmethodforthediagnosisofmicrobialkeratitis
AT horsburghmalcolm anevaluationofasimplifiedimpressionmembranesamplingmethodforthediagnosisofmicrobialkeratitis
AT kayestephenb anevaluationofasimplifiedimpressionmembranesamplingmethodforthediagnosisofmicrobialkeratitis
AT somervilletobif evaluationofasimplifiedimpressionmembranesamplingmethodforthediagnosisofmicrobialkeratitis
AT herbertrose evaluationofasimplifiedimpressionmembranesamplingmethodforthediagnosisofmicrobialkeratitis
AT nealtimothy evaluationofasimplifiedimpressionmembranesamplingmethodforthediagnosisofmicrobialkeratitis
AT horsburghmalcolm evaluationofasimplifiedimpressionmembranesamplingmethodforthediagnosisofmicrobialkeratitis
AT kayestephenb evaluationofasimplifiedimpressionmembranesamplingmethodforthediagnosisofmicrobialkeratitis