Skip Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
DiagnosticsDiagnostics
Download PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

27 August 2022

A Review on Pathogens and Necessary Diagnostic Work for Bleb-Related Infections (BRIs)

,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
First Department of Ophthalmology, G. Gennimatas Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 115 27 Athens, Greece
2
Sophiehemet Hospital, 114 86 Stockholm, Sweden
3
Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Ophthalmology and Vision, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden
4
Department of Ophthalmology, General Hospital of Katerini, 601 00 Katerini, Greece
Diagnostics2022, 12(9), 2075;https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12092075
This article belongs to the Special Issue Diagnosis and Management of Eye Infections
Version Notes
Order Reprints
Review Reports

Abstract

At the present time, as newer techniques and minimally invasive procedures gain popularity among anterior segment surgeons for regulating intraocular pressure, trabeculectomy still has a leading role in glaucoma surgery. Trabeculectomy retains a highly successful and safe profile; however, one of the major complications includes bleb-related infections (BRIs). To date, the most common pathogens remain Gram-positive cocci, but the list of pathogens that have been identified in the literature includes more than 100 microorganisms. Because antibiotic use is more widespread than ever before and our ability to identify pathogens has improved, the pathogen spectrum will broaden in the future and more pathogens causing BRIs will be described as atypical presentations. The scope of this review was to identify all pathogens that have been described to cause bleb-related infections to date, as well as focus on the risk factors, clinical presentation, and various available diagnostic tools used for an appropriate diagnostic workup.

1. Introduction

Glaucoma filtration surgery (GFS) remains one of the major procedures within the glaucoma surgeons armamentarium to surgically reduce intraocular pressure (IOP), restrain the progression of glaucomatous optic neuropathy, and prevent further visual field loss [1]. While newer techniques and minimally invasive procedures have gained popularity among anterior segment surgeons, trabeculectomy still has a leading role in surgical intervention and retains a highly successful and safe profile [1,2]. One of the major complications following GFS is bleb-related infections (BRI), which may compromise surgical success and increase the risk of poor post-surgical vision [3]. The clinical presentations of BRIs include blebitis (stage I), as was first introduced by Brown et al. in 1994, and bleb-associated endophthalmitis (BAE), with anterior chamber (stage II) and vitreous (stage III) involvement accompanying the latter form of the infection [4]. Manifestations of the infection involve the local mucopurulent bleb infiltration with or without extension to intraocular inflammation, dependent on staging. BAE is further classified as early- or late-onset, with a cut-off point corresponding to one month postoperatively [4,5]. The filtering bleb is purportedly recognized as the portal entry of causative pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Streptococcus species, and Haemophilus influenza, which are the most common pathogens associated with BRIs, but in recent years, there have been multiple case reports describing rarer pathogens [6,7,8,9,10,11]. The goal of this review was to identify and categorize all of the pathogens reported in the literature to date, focus on the sampling procedures that have been described, and highlight the clinical characteristics of BRIs.

2. Classification of BRIs

BRIs are clinically categorized into localized inflammation with various degrees of anterior chamber involvement, namely blebitis and bleb-associated endophthalmitis (BAE), in which there is vitreous involvement [12]. A more detailed classification has been suggested based on the extent of the infection. Stage I, when localized inflammation of the bleb is present, is associated with a milky-white appearance of the bleb, mucopurulent discharge, and erythema around the bleb without anterior chamber or vitreous involvement [13,14]. In stage II, there is involvement of the anterior chamber with cells, flare or even hypopyon and in stage III, there is involvement of the vitreous with cellular infiltration [4,13,14]. Further subdivisions of stage III have been proposed, IIIa and IIIb, with mild and marked vitreous involvement, respectively [3]. Clinically, in stage IIIa the fundus is visible and no opacity is detectable in B-mode ultrasonography, while in IIIb, the vitreous is too opaque with the detection of opacity in ultrasonography [3,15,16].
Based on the postsurgical timeframe of BAE, it is crucial to consider that it may appear even years after GFS and, for that reason, it is further classified as early- or late-onset with a cut-off point corresponding to one month postoperatively [17]. This distinction is important, as early onset BAE has been shown to be caused by less virulent pathogens, similar to those from cataract surgeries, such as staphylococcus epidermidis [9,18,19]. In contrast, late-onset BAE is provoked by more virulent pathogens, such as streptococcus species and gram-negative bacteria such as Hemophilus influenzae. Therefore, late-onset BAE tends to have a poorer prognosis compared to endophthalmitis caused by other surgeries [4,18,20].

3. Risk Factors for BRIs

BRI can occur years after a GFS, even more than four decades after surgery [21], rendering it a lifetime concern [22]. Hence, it is important that all possible risk factors are minimized. Most notable risk factors include the following.

4. Location of the Filtering Bleb

The inferior and nasal location of bleb creation are associated with the highest risk for BRI. This is due to its exposure to the lacrimal lake and its normal flora and the increased subjection to mechanical stress from the lower lid [23,24]. Superiorly located blebs are protected from the superior lid and have a much lower incidence of BRI than those that are inferiorly located (1.3% vs. 7.8% per patient-year) [25]. Based on current data, inferiorly located blebs are considered high-risk procedures for BRIs and are rarely applied worldwide.

5. Conjunctival Approach

There are two approaches regarding bleb creation in trabeculectomy, namely fornix-based and limbus-based flaps. It has been clearly reported that limbus-based flaps have a much higher risk for infections [5]; a comparative study between the two techniques by Kuroda et al. showed 8% (limbus) vs. 0% (fornix) incidence of infection [26], while a similar study comparing the outcomes of glaucoma filtration surgery with different approaches reported a decrease in the incidence of BRI after changing the surgical technique from limbus-based to fornix-based (5.7% to 1.2%) [27].

6. Thin and Leaking Bleb

In the event of a leaking bleb, the barrier between the pathogen rich tear-film and the interior of the eye is disrupted and pathogens can easily access the eye, causing infection [28]. A higher risk of BRI has been suggested when the bleb is paper-thin and avascular [29]. In a case-control study, comparing 55 cases of bleb-related infections with matched control eyes, the findings indicated that eyes with a BRI are 26 times more likely to have an accompanying leak than eyes without BRI, highlighting the strong link between a leaking bleb and the risk of contamination [30]. Regarding bleb leakage, it has been categorized into early- and late-onset leak [29]. Early bleb leaks tend to occur when the bleb is inferiorly located, when MMC has been applied and after suture lysis or needling procedures [31,32]. Comparing early bleb leakage with late-onset leakage, the latter is regarded as the most important risk factor for BRIs [5].

7. Antimetabolite Agents

Although the success rates of functioning filtering surgeries have increased with the use of antimetabolites (MMC and 5-FU), and increased rates of late-onset bleb leakage have also been reported, leading to a threefold greater risk of developing endophthalmitis [5]. It has been hypothesized that the altered innate immune barrier of the conjunctiva over the bleb is defective and prone to infection due to antimetabolites [33]. The risk ratio of BRI and late-onset leakage is estimated to 2.48 and 1.31 with MMC and 5-FU, respectively, based on a multicenter case control study that included 131 patients from 27 different surgeons [28]. Nevertheless, these risk rates have decreased due to the refining of surgical technique in recent years [27].

8. Other Risk Factors

Conjunctivitis, blepharitis, prior history of recurrent bleb infection, and chronic use of topical antibiotics are all strongly associated with increased risk for BRI [28,29,34]. Another interesting finding when assessing risk factors for BRI is the role of phacoemulsification when combined with glaucoma filtration surgery. Trabeculectomy as a standalone procedure was found to be less protective for BRI while; when combined with phacoemulsification, the blebs were thicker, and thus less prone to leakage and had lower incidence of infections [28]. Finally, it has been reported that myopic eyes with high axial lengths (average of 25.8 mm) show greater risk for BRI, probably due to their thinner sclera and conjunctiva, which allow for the pathogens to penetrate more easily [29].

9. Clinical Presentation

Since BRI can occur from months to years after GFS [35], patients may delay directly associating their symptoms with the previous surgery, and this may be detrimental to prognosis. Hence, patients must be informed beforehand to correlate symptoms such as redness, irritation, blurred vision and pain with their GFS. In case of BAE, these symptoms evolve within hours with the exacerbation of ocular pain, redness and loss of visual acuity [12]. Interestingly, brow ache, headache or external ocular inflammation, such as blepharitis, are reported within days or weeks in 35% of patients before the diagnosis of BRI or BAE and are considered prodromal clinical symptoms [36].
The clinical course of a BRI usually follows a progressive path, with early stages characterized by intense conjunctival hyperemia localized to the region of the filtering bleb. Later, the bleb loses its transparency and appears milky-white, filled with fibrino-purulent infiltrates. A Seidel test must be performed to detect any leakage. Inflammatory cells as well as hypopyon may be seen in the anterior chamber depending on the severity and the duration of the BRI, while inflammatory cells in the vitreous are considered endophthalmitis. Nevertheless, when hypopyon and an obvious bleb infection is seen, it is classified as endophthalmitis until proven otherwise [5,24,37].

10. Work-Up-Sampling

Evaluation of the clinical presentation is conducted via a slit-lamp biomicroscopy examination. This includes a thorough examination of the bleb area, performing a Seidel test to detect any bleb leakage, and of the anterior chamber and vitreous, during which any presence of inflammatory cells must be noted. Gonioscopy examination is useful for the detection of microhypopyon [24]. If a stage IIIb BRI has been classified (marked opacity of the vitreous due to inflammation on slit-lamp), an ultrasound B-scan of the posterior segment is indicated, as retrolental inflammation in suspected BAE is determined via choroidal thickening and ultrasound echoes in the vitreous [5,24].

11. Conjunctival Swabs

Microbiologic work-up is vital for the appropriate management of all BRI cases [16,38]. This consists of conjunctival swabs, anterior chamber and vitreous samples, with the latter ones being mandatory when the classification of BRI is II, IIIa or IIIb [15,16,38]. After detailed ocular examination, conjunctival samples are collected and sent for Gram, Giemsa staining and cultures. Pre-moistened with brain heart infusion, broth sterile swabs are used to collect bleb cultures, which then undergo microbiological analysis [4,39]. Cultures are made on blood agar (supplemented with 5% defibrinated sheep blood), chocolate agar, and Sabouraud dextrose agar, inoculated into thioglycolate medium and brain heart infusion broth. Swabs are also used to make smears for direct microscopic identification by Gram’s stain [39]. After daily examination, the inoculated blood agar, chocolate agar, thioglycolate broth, and brain heart infusion broth are incubated at 37 °C under 5% CO2 for 1–2 weeks before being discarded if no growth is detected [40]. Additionally, after 3 weeks, the inoculated sabouraud dextrose agar plates, which are incubated at 27 °C under biochemical oxygen demand, are discarded if there is no growth [39]. Cultures are considered positive in one of the following situations: (1) growth is confluent (more than 10 colonies) at the site of inoculation on solid media, (2) the organism is seen with direct microscopy in the smears, or (3) the same organism is detected on more than one medium [39,40].
After the isolates have been identified, an antibiotic susceptibility test should be performed to determine the most effective drug for therapy [40,41,42]. Apart from the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the antibacterial agents, the minimum bactericidal concentration should be determined as well. This is of great clinical importance, particularly in endophthalmitis, as concentrations should be 2–4 times higher than MIC in order to be effective [40].
It is important to compare the nature of the isolated organism and differentiate flora from the active invading pathogen. The ocular surface microbiota has a vertical stratification at the genus level, with opportunistic and environmental microorganisms near the surface, and potential pathogens (Staphylococci, Cornyebacteriae, and Proteobacteria) are accessible at a deeper level [43]; thus, a complete swabbing at different levels and not only over the affected bleb is necessary to obtain a precise characterization and differentiation from the active invading pathogen. Unfortunately, the swabbing site is rarely reported in related studies.
BRI cases with mixed infections cannot be excluded. However, mixed cases of endophthalmitis generally have a very low incidence, with just two cases reported out of a total of 330 cases in a recent study, both of them mixed infections of gram-negative bacteria and fungi [44].
Although a full microbiologic work-up is recommended for the optimal management of BRI, in clinical practice, conjunctival swabs are not always performed. A survey conducted by members of the American Glaucoma Society on 2001 showed that only 28% of the clinicians always took conjunctival samples in blebitis, whereas 34% almost never or never took any conjunctival cultures. [45] Similarly, a survey performed in the United Kingdom in 2012 showed that 26% of clinicians did not acquire conjunctival samples [46]. Both surveys reflect the current clinical practice among clinicians in both the United States and the United Kingdom and verify that determining specific antibiotic treatment based on conjunctival swabs is not considered as useful or trustworthy due to the high chances of contamination. However, if treatment with antibiotics is commenced, then the chances for a future successful culture are considerably reduced; hence, the proper timing for the sampling procedure should always be adhered to since there is a chance that blind treatment with a wide-spectrum antibiotic may not be sufficient and could potentially lead to widespread bacterial resistance to these agents.

12. Aqueous and Vitreous Samples

Aqueous or vitreous samples are almost never taken when BRIs do not show signs of intraocular extension and are limited to the bleb area (blebitis, stage I) [45]. Conjunctival samples in cases that are classified as stage II or III are rarely collected according to guidelines, as it has been shown that the culture results from surface samples compared to those from intraocular samples (aqueous and vitreous) have significant discrepancies, ranging from 26% to 0% [33,47]. In general, microbiologic work-up is a time-consuming process and has poor sensitivity for bacterial detection, with negative culture results ranging from 21% to 86%, rendering the management of infective endophthalmitis challenging [5,48].
Apart from traditional microbiologic assays, molecular diagnostic tools are also available for the detection of culture negative cases via real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [42,49,50]. Bispo et al., in a study with 31 samples, were able to estimate an improvement from 47.6% to 95.3% in detecting bacteria using real-time PCR [49]. Moreover, Cornut et al., in a comparative study with 7 patients with BRI, were able to obtain positive results and identify pathogens in all 7 cases using bacteria PCR technique, whereas traditional microbiologic culture revealed negative cultures in 6 out of 7 cases [51]. Pan-bacterial PCR has been used as a complementary technique to traditional microbiologic culture, providing a concomitant increase in detection sensitivity of 21% [6]. Additionally, for the diagnosis of fungal endophthalmitis, pan-fungal PCR using internal transcribed spacer (ITS) primers is considered a highly sensitive method, as fungi are known to have low sensitivity yields in conventional methods [40,52].
The advantages of PCR in aqueous and vitreous samples include the delivery of fast results (within 90 min), as well as a much higher specificity and sensitivity compared to standard microbiologic culture [40,53,54]. These features make PCR a helpful tool, especially in cases where traditional cultures take weeks to provide results, such as in slow-growing bacteria such as mycobacteria, or in organisms that are difficult to culture, such as Microsporidia, Propionibacterium acnes and Toxoplasma gondii, in all of which the earlier initiation of treatment could provide a better visual outcomes [40,55].
Despite its advantages, PCR has some limitations that do not allow for it to be broadly used. These include an approximately ten times higher cost compared to that for traditional microbiologic cultures, as well as a possible delay of up to four days in the delivery of results using some techniques, such as pan-bacteria PCR [5]. Another limitation is the strong probability of generating false negative or false positive results; therefore, interpretation should be conducted cautiously, considering both the clinical evaluation and the microbiologic culture for the validation of the result [51,56]. Parameters affecting the results, resulting in false negatives, comprise the innate presence of PCR inhibitors in the sample, the difficulty of lysing bacteria and the detection threshold, whereas false positives may be produced from possible contamination at any stage, molecular biology reagents or handling [51]. However, if a strict methodology is followed, the false positive rate of pan-bacterial PCR can be reduced to a range between 0% and 2% [57]. Finally, PCR techniques are being developed to target the most virulent bacteria causing endophthalmitis (Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus Aureus), as well as detecting the presence of antibiotic resistance genes such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococci by mecA PCR [51,58].

13. Pathogens

A significant number of different microorganisms have been isolated and described as a cause of BRIs. Pathogen prevalence and virulence are BRI-stage dependent; the more advanced and late-onset the BRI is, the more virulent the isolates may be [9]. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus are mostly identified in early-onset BRIs, whereas late-onset BRIs are most commonly culture-positive for Streptococcus [5]. Late-onset BRE are causatively related not only to gram-positive cocci, but also to pathogens such as Haemophilus sp., Serratia sp., Enterococcus sp. [6,11,59,60]. In a 14-year retrospective consecutive case series conducted by Jacobs et al., positive cultures were correlated with poorer VA outcomes [18].
The culture-proven causative microorganisms of BRIs are presented in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3, classified by Gram staining. It is important to mention that overall, in our search of the literature, cultures were not performed in 104 cases, while 433 cultures proved no isolate. The above finding highlights two main issues. Firstly, it reflects the trend in clinical practice of a significant number of physicians who, in many cases, do not request microbial cultures. Secondly, it shows the limitations of the cultures since a significant number of cases may turn out negative. Negative cultures should not delay treatment but appropriate management should be adjusted to clinical findings and the experience of the physician. Additionally, there is cumulative evidence that in culture-negative cases, Abiotrophia defectiva should be of concern, since a culture-positive outcome is twofold in vitreous cultures compared to these from aqueous sampling and when suspected, PCR testing should be acquired [36,61].
Table 1. Grampositive pathogens causing BRIs.
Table 2. Gram-negative pathogens causing BRIs.
Table 3. Rare and uncommon pathogens associated with BRIs.
Gram-positive cocci, such as Streptococcus and Staphylococcus sp., and gram-negative microorganisms, including Moraxella and Haemophilus sp., were found to be the most common pathogens related to BRIs, as also stated in several studies [5,9,62,63,64] (Table 1).
Among Streptococcus sp., which represent around 385 isolates, S. pneumoniae and S. viridans share the top of the chain of command of the causative pathogens, while S. mitis, S. sanguinis, and S. oralis are isolated 25% less frequently. Kawakami et al. published a rare case of late-onset BRE due to S. pseudopneumoniae, diagnosed and distinguished from other streptococci by 16S rRNA sequencing [8]. In a retrospective consecutive case series study concerning late onset BRE by Leng et al., Peptostreptococcus prevoti was isolated with two other coagulase-negative Staphylococcus sp. [9].
Regarding Staphylococcal BRIs, S. aureus is the evident isolate in almost half of the cases, followed by S. epidermidis. Studies with culture-proven coagulase-negative or -positive Staphylococcus are described in Table 1 within the “NS, other, unidentifiable” staphylococcal sp., which are equal to S. aureus cases. Not further specified gram-negative bacillus and species, and gram-positive bacillus and cocci are noted as “NS cocci & rods, other sp.”. Nocardia BRI cases are as frequent as those of Gemella sp. Interestingly, Ifantides et al. were the first to describe a case of Nocardia exalbida and Nocardia abscessus complex, as revealed from six cultures, in a patient with a history of trabeculectomy and bleb revision, who experienced blebitis [7].
In regards to gram-negative isolates (categorized in Table 2), Moraxella and Haemophilus sp. predominated in the majority of the culture-positive cases, where Pseudomonas and Serratia sp. ensued with 24 and 16 cases, respectively. Both the latter mentioned microorganisms are related to poorer VA outcomes compared to BRE cases caused by Moraxella sp., an outcome that is also evident in Pseudomonas BRE cases [18,65,66]. The preponderance of Moraxella sp. is apparent, designated for around 79 cases, while around 50 cultures did not further specify the species. H. aegypticus, H. haemolyticus, H. pneumoniae are the sole cases of the total 63 culture—-proven cases related to Haemophilus sp., as the majority are represented by H. influenzae. Twenty-eight cases of gram-negative BRI cases are described as “NS cocci & rods, other sp.” in Table 2.
Rare and uncommon microorganisms, causatively related to both blebitis and endophthalmitis, have also been reported in some case reports and case series. In a recent case report, Yang et al. referred to a patient with late-onset stage II blebitis with concomitant bleb perforation, ascribed to Capnocytophaga canimorsuss, an anaerobic gram-negative bacillus, transmitted by his canine saliva [11]. Streptococcus mitis presents with a moderate frequency concerning BRIs and we have reported 17 culture-proven cases. Among them, a late-onset BRE attributed to Streptococcus mitis, which possibly translocated from respiratory flora due to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), was described by Berg et al. [67]. Furthermore, skin flora microorganisms of low virulence, such as Dermabacter hominis and Kocuria rosea, have also been identified in BRE cases [6]. Moreover, as the role of rRNA sequencing in BRI diagnostic algorithm is gaining importance, more rare pathogens involved in BRIs will be revealed, as in the case of a late-onset BRE caused by Rothia mucilaginosa, a gram-positive coccus [10]. Finally, fungi and mycobacteria sp. are recognized as a scarce cause of BRIs and their management remains a great challenge [35,36,55,68,69,70,71,72,73]. These reported cases are summarized in Table 3.

14. Conclusions

BRIs remain one of the most serious complications after glaucoma filtration surgery, are considered a vision-threatening situation, and may severely compromise surgical success. Prognosis varies and depends on multiple factors but undoubtedly, early detection remains a crucial factor on the final outcome [5,36,63]. To ensure the rapid recognition of an evolving infection, both patients and physicians should be vigilant for the signs that characterize early stages of BRIs. Informing the patients, who have undergone glaucoma filtration surgery, that they carry a lifelong risk of infection at the site of surgery is critical, as well as advising them to seek urgent consultation when first signs appear [21,45]. Physicians should recognize the clinical presentation of a BRI, identify the stage, perform clinical work-up, and start appropriate treatment as soon as possible [45,46]. Being familiar with the risk factors associated with the BRIs may prove helpful in these situations. The specific characteristics (vascularity, thickness, integrity), the location of the bleb (inferior versus anterior) and the use of antimetabolites (agent type, duration, concentration) remain among the most important risk factors that should be identified by general ophthalmologists [29]. The post-surgical time period between surgery and the beginning of the BRI is also significant, since late onset BRIs involve different pathogens and have a worse prognosis than earlier infections. In general, when considering culture-positive pathogens for BRIs, gram-positive cocci should be the main focus. While more than one hundred different pathogens have been described in the literature and are included in our review, gram-positive cocci remain by far the most commonly reported microorganisms. Pathogens involved in the early stages of BRI are usually less virulent and predominately belong to the coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species, while pathogens in late-onset BRIs belong mainly to Streptococcus sp., followed by Haemophilus sp., Serratia sp., and Enterococcus sp. [5]. Because antibiotic use is more widespread than ever before and our ability to identify pathogens has improved, we believe that the pathogen spectrum will broaden in the future and more pathogens causing BRIs will be described as atypical presentations. For this reason, it is important to use efficiently all available diagnostic tools, including microbiological cultures and the PCR of aqueous and vitreous when appropriate. Equally, physicians should consider the limitations and restrictions of various forms of diagnostic testing, including the level of specificity and sensitivity, as well as cost-effectiveness. Fortunately, new directions are being offered with the advent of new methods, such as, for example, those that fall in the domain of metageniomics [74]: a new methodology of high-throughput DNA sequencing, which provides taxonomic and functional profiles of microbial communities without a cell culture in the laboratory. These new methods have been employed for delicate examinations of extreme importance, such as detecting the presence of microorganisms in the storage media of human donor corneas, and have shown superior results [75].
A limitation of this study is that the search strategy did not include clinical trials, although relevant valid results would have been published in peer-reviewed journals, so the decision was made not to expand the search since there was a risk of including misleading results.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.A.K. and P.P.; methodology, S.A.K. and L.D.; validation, C.D. and M.E.; formal analysis, D.M. and P.P.; investigation, D.M. and L.D.; data curation, I.M. and I.G.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.K., L.D. and D.M.; writing—review and editing, I.M. and C.D.; visualization, I.G. and M.A.E.; supervision, I.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kalarn, S.; Le, T.; Rhee, D.J. The role of trabeculectomy in the era of minimally invasive glaucoma surgery. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2022, 33, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kandarakis, S.A.; Papakonstantinou, E.; Petrou, P.; Diagourtas, A.; Ifantides, C.; Georgalas, I.; Serle, J. One-Year Randomized Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Trabeculectomy with Mitomycin C Sub-Tenon Injection versus Mitomycin C-Infused Sponges. Ophthalmol. Glaucoma 2022, 5, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Shoji, N.; Arakaki, Y.; Nakamoto, K.; Yamamoto, T.; Kuwayama, Y. Efficacy of predetermined therapeutic measures against bleb-related infection in the Collaborative Bleb-related Infection Incidence and Treatment Study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2018, 96, e229–e236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Razeghinejad, M.R.; Havens, S.J.; Katz, L.J. Trabeculectomy bleb-associated infections. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2017, 62, 591–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yassin, S.A. Bleb-related infection revisited: A literature review. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016, 94, 122–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Brillat-Zaratzian, E.; Bron, A.; Aptel, F.; Romanet, J.P.; Cornut, P.L.; Vandenesch, F.; Boisset, S.; Maurin, M.; Chiquet, C. FRIENDS Group: Clinical and microbiological characteristics of post-filtering surgery endophthalmitis. Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2014, 252, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ifantides, C.; Batlle, O.R.; Mushatt, D.; Ayyala, R.S. Nocardia exalbida blebitis: A case report. J. Glaucoma 2015, 24, e19–e21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kawakami, H.; Nakane, Y.; Inuzuka, H.; Fukagawa, T.; Muto, T.; Mochizuki, K.; Ohkusu, K.; Suematsu, H.; Yamagishi, Y.; Mikamo, H. Late-onset bleb-related endophthalmitis caused by Streptococcus pseudopneumoniae. Int. Ophthalmol. 2014, 34, 643–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Leng, T.; Miller, D.; Flynn, H.W., Jr.; Jacobs, D.J.; Gedde, S.J. Delayed-onset bleb-associated endophthalmitis (1996–2008): Causative organisms and visual acuity outcomes. Retina 2011, 31, 344–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Oie, S.; Mochizuki, K.; Ishida, K.; Nakayama, A.; Ohkusu, K. Case of late-onset bleb associated endophthalmitis caused by Rothia mucilaginosa. J. Infect. Chemother. 2016, 22, 645–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yang, M.C.; Ling, J.; Mosaed, S. Capnocytophaga canimorsus blebitis: Case report and review of literature. BMC Ophthalmol. 2021, 21, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Brown, R.H.; Yang, L.H.; Walker, S.D.; Lynch, M.G.; Martinez, L.A.; Wilson, L.A. Treatment of bleb infection after glaucoma surgery. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1994, 112, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Azuara-Blanco, A.; Katz, L.J. Dysfunctional filtering blebs. Surv. Ophthalmol. 1998, 43, 93–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liebmann, J.M.; Ritch, R. Bleb related ocular infection: A feature of the HELP syndrome. Hypotony, endophthalmitis, leak, pain. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2000, 84, 1338–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  15. Yamamoto, T.; Kuwayama, Y. Interim clinical outcomes in the collaborative bleb-related infection incidence and treatment study. Ophthalmology 2011, 118, 453–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yamamoto, T.; Kuwayama, Y.; Kano, K.; Sawada, A.; Shoji, N. Clinical features of bleb-related infection: A 5-year survey in Japan. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013, 91, 619–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kangas, T.A.; Greenfield, D.S.; Flynn, H.W., Jr.; Parrish, R.K., 2nd; Palmberg, P. Delayed-onset endophthalmitis associated with conjunctival filtering blebs. Ophthalmology 1997, 104, 746–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jacobs, D.J.; Leng, T.; Flynn, H.W., Jr.; Shi, W.; Miller, D.; Gedde, S.J. Delayed-onset bleb-associated endophthalmitis: Presentation and outcome by culture result. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2011, 5, 739–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Song, A.; Scott, I.U.; Flynn, H.W., Jr.; Budenz, D.L. Delayed-onset bleb-associated endophthalmitis: Clinical features and visual acuity outcomes. Ophthalmology 2002, 109, 985–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Luebke, J.; Neuburger, M.; Jordan, J.F.; Wecker, T.; Boehringer, D.; Cakir, B.; Reinhard, T.; Anton, A. Bleb-related infections and long-term follow-up after trabeculectomy. Int. Ophthalmol. 2019, 39, 571–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wong, Y.L.; Shankar, V. Trauma-induced filtering bleb formation and blebitis 40 years following a penetrating eye injury. BMJ Case Rep. 2020, 13, e234355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Sayed, K.M. Common and rare complications following filtering surgery for children with congenital glaucoma; a5 years study. Eur. J. Ophthalmol. 2021, 31, 3034–3041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Caronia, R.M.; Liebmann, J.M.; Friedman, R.; Cohen, H.; Ritch, R. Trabeculectomy at the inferior limbus. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1996, 114, 387–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Prasad, N.; Latina, M.A. Blebitis and endophthalmitis after glaucoma filtering surgery. Int. Ophthalmol. Clin. 2007, 47, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Muckley, E.D.; Lehrer, R.A. Late-onset blebitis/endophthalmitis: Incidence and outcomes with mitomycin C. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2004, 81, 499–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kuroda, U.; Inoue, T.; Awai-Kasaoka, N.; Shobayashi, K.; Kojima, S.; Tanihara, H. Fornix-based versus limbal-based conjunctival flaps in trabeculectomy with mitomycin C in high-risk patients. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2014, 8, 949–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rai, P.; Kotecha, A.; Kaltsos, K.; Ruddle, J.B.; Murdoch, I.E.; Bunce, C.; Barton, K. Changing trends in the incidence of bleb-related infection in trabeculectomy. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2012, 96, 971–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jampel, H.D.; Quigley, H.A.; Kerrigan-Baumrind, L.A.; Melia, B.M.; Friedman, D.; Barron, Y. Risk factors for late-onset infection following glaucoma filtration surgery. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2001, 119, 1001–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ashkenazi, I.; Melamed, S.; Avni, I.; Bartov, E.; Blumenthal, M. Risk factors associated with late infection of filtering blebs and endophthalmitis. Ophthalmic. Surg. 1991, 22, 570–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Soltau, J.B.; Rothman, R.F.; Budenz, D.L.; Greenfield, D.S.; Feuer, W.; Liebmann, J.M.; Ritch, R. Risk factors for glaucoma filtering bleb infections. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2000, 118, 338–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Parrish, R.K., 2nd; Schiffman, J.C.; Feuer, W.J.; Heuer, D.K. Prognosis and risk factors for early postoperative wound leaks after trabeculectomy with and without 5-fluorouracil. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2001, 132, 633–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kandarakis, S.; Kontaxakis, A.; Doumazos, L.; Petrou, P.; Droutsas, K.; Papaconstantinou, D.; Georgalas, I. Assessing safety and success after using bevacizumab, 5-fluorouracil or placebo in primary trabeculectomy. A prospective randomized placebo controlled 1-year follow-up study. Cutan. Ocul. Toxicol. 2022, 41, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Lehmann, O.J.; Bunce, C.; Matheson, M.M.; Maurino, V.; Khaw, P.T.; Wormald, R.; Barton, K. Risk factors for development of post-trabeculectomy endophthalmitis. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2000, 84, 1349–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Shao, E.H.; Yates, W.B.; Ho, I.V.; Chang, A.A.; Simunovic, M.P. Endophthalmitis: Changes in Presentation, Management and the Role of Early Vitrectomy. Ophthalmol. Ther. 2021, 10, 877–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ciulla, T.A.; Beck, A.D.; Topping, T.M.; Baker, A.S. Blebitis, early endophthalmitis, and late endophthalmitis after glaucoma-filtering surgery. Ophthalmology 1997, 104, 986–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Poulsen, E.J.; Allingham, R.R. Characteristics and risk factors of infections after glaucoma filtering surgery. J. Glaucoma 2000, 9, 438–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ng, A.W.; Yip, V.C.; Ang, B.C.; Yip, L.W.; Lim, B.A. Culture-positive exogenous endophthalmitis related to XEN45 gel stent implantation. Am. J. Ophthalmol. Case Rep. 2022, 25, 101291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Durand, M.L. Bacterial and Fungal Endophthalmitis. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2017, 30, 597–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ramakrishnan, R.; Bharathi, M.J.; Maheshwari, D.; Mohideen, P.M.; Khurana, M.; Shivakumar, C. Etiology and epidemiological analysis of glaucoma-filtering bleb infections in a tertiary eye care hospital in South India. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2011, 59, 445–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sharma, S. Diagnosis of infectious diseases of the eye. Eye 2012, 26, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Das, S.; D’Souza, S.; Gorimanipalli, B.; Shetty, R.; Ghosh, A.; Deshpande, V. Ocular Surface Infection Mediated Molecular Stress Responses: A Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 3111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Osei Duah Junior, I.; Tchiakpe, M.P.; Borquaye, L.S.; Amoah, K.; Amankwah, F.K.D.; Kumah, D.B.; Ofori, L.A.; Danso-Appiah, A.; Prempeh, B.O.; Gbedema, S.Y.; et al. Clinical characteristics of external bacterial ocular and periocular infections and their antimicrobial treatment patterns among a Ghanaian ophthalmic population. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 10264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Petrillo, F.; Pignataro, D.; Lavano, M.A.; Santella, B.; Folliero, V.; Zannella, C.; Astarita, C.; Gagliano, C.; Franci, G.; Avitabile, T.; et al. Current Evidence on the Ocular Surface Microbiota and Related Diseases. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Duan, F.; Wu, K.; Liao, J.; Zheng, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Tan, J.; Lin, X. Causative Microorganisms of Infectious Endophthalmitis: A 5-Year Retrospective Study. J. Ophthal. 2016, 2016, 6764192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Reynolds, A.C.; Skuta, G.L.; Monlux, R.; Johnson, J. Management of blebitis by members of the American Glaucoma Society: A survey. J. Glaucoma 2001, 10, 340–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Chiam, P.J.; Arashvand, K.; Shaikh, A.; James, B. Management of blebitis in the United Kingdom: A survey. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2012, 96, 38–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Greenfield, D.S.; Suñer, I.J.; Miller, M.P.; Kangas, T.A.; Palmberg, P.F.; Flynn, H.W., Jr. Endophthalmitis after filtering surgery with mitomycin. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1996, 114, 943–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Leal, S.M., Jr.; Rodino, K.G.; Fowler, W.C.; Gilligan, P.H. Practical Guidance for Clinical Microbiology Laboratories: Diagnosis of Ocular Infections. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2021, 34, e0007019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bispo, P.J.; de Melo, G.B.; Hofling-Lima, A.L.; Pignatari, A.C. Detection and gram discrimination of bacterial pathogens from aqueous and vitreous humor using real-time PCR assays. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011, 52, 873–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bispo, P.J.M.; Davoudi, S.; Sahm, M.L.; Ren, A.; Miller, J.; Romano, J.; Sobrin, L.; Gilmore, M.S. Rapid Detection and Identification of Uveitis Pathogens by Qualitative Multiplex Real-Time PCR. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018, 59, 582–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cornut, P.L.; Chiquet, C.; Bron, A.; Romanet, J.P.; Lina, G.; Lafontaine, P.O.; Benito, Y.; Pechinot, A.; Burillon, C.; Vandenesch, F.; et al. Microbiologic identification of bleb-related delayed-onset endophthalmitis caused by moraxella species. J. Glaucoma 2008, 17, 541–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Raj, N.; Vanathi, M.; Ahmed, N.H.; Gupta, N.; Lomi, N.; Tandon, R. Recent Perspectives in the Management of Fungal Keratitis. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Connell, P.P.; O’Neill, E.C.; Fabinyi, D.; Islam, F.M.; Buttery, R.; McCombe, M.; Essex, R.W.; Roufail, E.; Clark, B.; Chiu, D.; et al. Endogenous endophthalmitis: 10-year experience at a tertiary referral centre. Eye 2011, 25, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ting, D.S.J.; Gopal, B.P.; Deshmukh, R.; Seitzman, G.D.; Said, D.G.; Dua, H.S. Diagnostic armamentarium of infectious keratitis: A comprehensive review. Ocul. Surf. 2022, 23, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Seth, P.K.; Sharma, S.; Senthil, S. Bleb-related tuberculous endophthalmitis following combined phacoemulsification and trabeculectomy with mitomycin C. BMJ Case Rep. 2020, 13, e234175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Van Halsema, J.; Jansen, R.; Heineken, A.; van Ossewaarde, T.M.; Meester-Smoor, M.A.; van Meurs, J.C. Validation of a multi-species-specific PCR panel to diagnose patients with suspected postoperative bacterial endophthalmitis. Acta Ophthalmol. 2022, 100, e827–e832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Chiquet, C.; Cornut, P.L.; Benito, Y.; Thuret, G.; Maurin, M.; Lafontaine, P.O.; Pechinot, A.; Palombi, K.; Lina, G.; Bron, A.; et al. Eubacterial PCR for bacterial detection and identification in 100 acute postcataract surgery endophthalmitis. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008, 49, 1971–1978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Miller, F.C.; Coburn, P.S.; Huzzatul, M.M.; LaGrow, A.L.; Livingston, E.; Callegan, M.C. Targets of immunomodulation in bacterial endophthalmitis. Prog. Retin. Eye Res. 2019, 73, 100763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sosuan, G.M.N.; Leuenberger, E.U. Late-onset Subconjunctival Abscess Secondary to Serratia marcescens Associated With Unexposed Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Implant. J. Glaucoma 2020, 29, e110–e112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sagara, H.; Yamamoto, T.; Sekiryu, T.; Ogasawara, M.; Tango, T. Seasonal Variation in the Incidence of Late-onset Bleb-related Infection After Filtering Surgery in Japan: The Japan Glaucoma Society Survey of Bleb-related Infection Report 3. J. Glaucoma 2016, 25, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hugo Lee, M.H.; Lawlor, M.; Lee, A.J. Abiotrophia defectiva bleb-associated endophthalmitis confirmed with 16s ribosomal RNA sequencing. J. Glaucoma 2015, 24, 87–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Takahashi, S.; Murata, K.; Ozawa, K.; Yamada, H.; Kawakami, H.; Nakayama, A.; Asano, Y.; Mochizuki, K.; Mikamo, H. Moraxella species: Infectious microbes identified by use of time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Jpn. J. Ophthalmol. 2019, 63, 328–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wallin, Ö.; Al-ahramy, A.M.; Lundström, M.; Montan, P. Endophthalmitis and severe blebitis following trabeculectomy. Epidemiology and risk factors; a single-centre retrospective study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014, 92, 426–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Yap, Z.L.; Chin, Y.C.; Ku, J.Y.; Chan, T.K.; Teh, G.; Nongpiur, M.E.; Aung, T.; Perera, S.A. Bleb related infections: Clinical characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes in an Asian population. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2016, 10, 2303–2309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Berrocal, A.M.; Scott, I.U.; Miller, D.; Flynn, H.W., Jr. Endophthalmitis caused by Moraxella species. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2001, 132, 788–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Berrocal, A.M.; Scott, I.U.; Miller, D.; Flynn, H.W., Jr. Endophthalmitis caused by Moraxella osloensis. Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2002, 240, 329–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Berg, E.J.; Davies, J.B.; Buboltz, M.R.; Samuelson, T.W. Late-onset bleb-associated endophthalmitis and continuous positive airway pressure. Am. J. Ophthalmol. Case Rep. 2018, 10, 87–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Benz, M.S.; Murray, T.G.; Dubovy, S.R.; Katz, R.S.; Eifrig, C.W. Endophthalmitis caused by Mycobacterium chelonae abscessus after intravitreal injection of triamcinolone. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2003, 121, 271–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  69. Busbee, B.G.; Recchia, F.M.; Kaiser, R.; Nagra, P.; Rosenblatt, B.; Pearlman, R.B. Bleb-associated endophthalmitis: Clinical characteristics and visual outcomes. Ophthalmology 2004, 111, 1495–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Dimacali, V.G.; Lim Bon Siong, R. Infectious endophthalmitis at a Philippine tertiary hospital: A ten-year retrospective study. J Ophthalmic Inflamm. Infect. 2020, 10, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Gedde, S.J.; Scott, I.U.; Tabandeh, H.; Luu, K.K.; Budenz, D.L.; Greenfield, D.S.; Flynn, H.W., Jr. Late endophthalmitis associated with glaucoma drainage implants. Ophthalmology 2001, 108, 1323–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Scott, I.U.; Cruz-Villegas, V.; Flynn, H.W., Jr.; Miller, D. Delayed-onset, bleb-associated endophthalmitis caused by Lecythophora mutabilis. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2004, 137, 583–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Mandelbaum, S.; Forster, R.K.; Gelender, H.; Culbertson, W. Late onset endophthalmitis associated with filtering blebs. Ophthalmology 1985, 92, 964–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Borroni, D.; Romano, V.; Kaye, S.B.; Somerville, T.; Napoli, L.; Fasolo, A.; Gallon, P.; Ponzin, D.; Esposito, A.; Ferrari, S. Metagenomics in ophthalmology: Current findings and future prospectives. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2019, 4, e000248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Parekh, M.; Borroni, D.; Romano, V.; Kaye, S.B.; Camposampiero, D.; Ponzin, D.; Ferrari, S. Next-generation sequencing for the detection of microorganisms present in human donor corneal preservation medium. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2019, 4, e000246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Can Ultrasound and Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Help Differentiate between Subpleural Focal Organizing Pneumonia and Primary Lung Malignancy?
Previous
Factors Predicting 150 and 200 Microgram Adenosine Requirement during Four Increasing Doses of Intracoronary Adenosine Bolus Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment
Next