ArticleCase reports in ophthalmology
Bilateral Acanthamoeba Keratitis Secondary to Contaminated Contact Lens Suction Applicators: A Rare Case of Accessory-Mediated Transmission.
Article in Case reports in ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) is a sight-threatening corneal infection primarily associated with contact lens wear. While lens and case hygiene are frequently emphasised, auxiliary tools such as suction applicators remain a neglected vector for transmission. This report highlights a case of bilateral AK where a contaminated suction applicator served as a likely vehicle for infection. Case Presentation: A 57-year-old female long-term rigid gas permeable (RGP) lens wearer presented with a 2-week history of severe, bilateral ocular pain, redness, and photophobia. Slit-lamp examination revealed bilateral dendritic epithelial disruption and mild anterior chamber activity. The patient reported good contact lens hygiene but used a rubber suction applicator for daily lens use, which was routinely rinsed with tap water. Diagnosis was confirmed via corneal scrapings and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for Acanthamoeba DNA. PCR analysis of washes from the suction device's lumen also returned positive for Acanthamoeba. Following a course of topical propamidine isethionate (Brolene) and topical chlorhexidine 0.02%, the keratitis fully resolved over several months. Final visual acuity was 6/12 (pinhole) in the right eye and 6/5 in the left. Conclusion: This case underscores a critical blind spot in patient education regarding accessory hygiene. Suction applicators can act as a reservoir for Acanthamoeba and provide a route for inoculation onto the ocular surface. We recommend that these tools undergo regular replacement and be handled with strict no-water protocols. Clinicians should specifically audit and advise on the hygiene of handling tools, particularly in RGP and scleral lens populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.