IOVS JNCI
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1167/iovs.07-1283 on August 8, 2008
 (Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2009;50:152-156.)
© 2009 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
DOI:  10.1167/iovs.07-1283
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
iovs.07-1283v1
50/1/152    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vengayil, S.
Right arrow Articles by Khokhar, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vengayil, S.
Right arrow Articles by Khokhar, S.

Polymerase Chain Reaction-Guided Diagnosis of Mycotic Keratitis: A Prospective Evaluation of Its Efficacy and Limitations

Sujith Vengayil,1 Anita Panda,1 Gita Satpathy,2 Niranjan Nayak,2 Supriyo Ghose,1 Dipika Patanaik,2 and Sudarshan Khokhar1

1From the Departments of Ophthalmology and 2Ocular Microbiology, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

PURPOSE. To assess the utility of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in diagnosing fungal keratitis and compare its sensitivity and specificity with those of the conventional microbiologic techniques used in the authors’ laboratory.

METHODS. A prospective nonrandomized investigation was undertaken at a tertiary-care ophthalmic facility to evaluate 40 eyes of 40 patients with presumed fungal keratitis, both fresh and treated. Besides routine bacterial culture and sensitivity, corneal scrapings were evaluated by fungal culture, potassium hydroxide (KOH) wet mount, Gram’s stain, and PCR. The conventional PCR technique was followed with minor modifications to suit the setup, using primers targeted to 28S rRNA sequence, which is common to all fungi that cause corneal infections in tropical climes.

RESULTS. Of the 40 presumed cases of mycotic keratitis (30 untreated), PCR showed positivity in 50%, culture in 25%, hyphae in KOH in 40%, and Gram’s staining in 35%. The sensitivities of PCR, KOH, and Gram’s were 70%, 60%, and 40% and specificities 56.7%, 66.7%, and 66.7%, respectively. Among 10 of 40 eyes pretreated with antifungal agents, PCR was positive in 50%, but culture in 30%. The time taken for PCR assay was 4 to 8 hours, whereas positive fungal cultures took at least 5 to 7 days.

CONCLUSIONS. PCR not only proved an effective rapid method for the diagnosis of fungal keratitis, but was also more sensitive in our hands than KOH wetmount and Gram’s smear. Barring the potential limitations, PCR remains a promising tool for faster diagnoses of fungal keratitis.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology