Seminars in ophthalmology · 2017
Management of Corneal Bee Sting Injuries.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rai Ruju R, Gonzalez-Gonzalez Luis A, Papakostas Thanos D, Siracuse-Lee Donna, Dunphy Robert, Fanciullo Lisa, Cakiner-Egilmez Tulay, Daly Mary K
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To review the management of keratitis after corneal bee stings and to report a case of deep stromal corneal infiltrate secondary to a retained bee stinger managed conservatively in a patient who presented three days after unsanitary manipulation of the stinger apparatus.
METHODS: Case report and review of literature.
RESULTS: A 57-year-old male beekeeper was evaluated for pain, blurry vision, and photosensitivity after a corneal bee sting. Of note, the venom sac had been removed with dirty tweezers three days prior to his visit. On exam, a focal infiltrate with diffuse edema was seen surrounding a retained bee stinger in the peripheral cornea. Trace cells in the anterior chamber were also noted. Based on a high suspicion for infectious keratitis, a conservative treatment strategy was elected. Administration of broad-spectrum topical antibiotics with concomitant abstention of corticosteroids led to rapid resolution of the symptoms. Over 16 months of follow-up, the stinger has remained in situ without migration and the patient has maintained 20/20 visual acuity without complications. There is debate on the preferred method for the management of corneal injury secondary to bee stings, especially when it is associated with a retained stinger. We herein present our findings in our appraisal of reported cases.
CONCLUSION: In the aftermath of an ocular bee sting, close surveillance for inflammation and infection is essential. Individual manifestations of these injuries vary in timing, type, and severity; therefore, the accessibility of the stinger and the evolving clinical picture should guide therapeutic decisions.
METHODS: Case report and review of literature.
RESULTS: A 57-year-old male beekeeper was evaluated for pain, blurry vision, and photosensitivity after a corneal bee sting. Of note, the venom sac had been removed with dirty tweezers three days prior to his visit. On exam, a focal infiltrate with diffuse edema was seen surrounding a retained bee stinger in the peripheral cornea. Trace cells in the anterior chamber were also noted. Based on a high suspicion for infectious keratitis, a conservative treatment strategy was elected. Administration of broad-spectrum topical antibiotics with concomitant abstention of corticosteroids led to rapid resolution of the symptoms. Over 16 months of follow-up, the stinger has remained in situ without migration and the patient has maintained 20/20 visual acuity without complications. There is debate on the preferred method for the management of corneal injury secondary to bee stings, especially when it is associated with a retained stinger. We herein present our findings in our appraisal of reported cases.
CONCLUSION: In the aftermath of an ocular bee sting, close surveillance for inflammation and infection is essential. Individual manifestations of these injuries vary in timing, type, and severity; therefore, the accessibility of the stinger and the evolving clinical picture should guide therapeutic decisions.