Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Bacterial culture from corneal ulcer vs eye swab in dogs with eye
By Auten, Candace R et al.·Published in Veterinary ophthalmology·2020·Eye Care for Animals·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparison of bacterial culture results collected via direct corneal ulcer vs conjunctival fornix sampling in canine eyes with presumed bacterial ulcerative keratitis.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 55 dogs with eye problems caused by bacterial infections (ulcerative keratitis) had samples taken from both the infected cornea and the lower eyelid area to see which method was better for identifying the bacteria. The results showed that while both sampling methods found bacteria, the conjunctival area was slightly more effective. In fact, 66% of samples from the conjunctival fornix grew bacteria compared to 55% from the cornea. This means that for dogs with serious corneal issues, taking samples from the eyelid area could be a good alternative for diagnosing infections.
People also search for: dog eye infection treatment · bacterial keratitis in dogs · how to treat corneal ulcers in dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare aerobic bacterial culture results between samples obtained from the corneal ulcer versus lower conjunctival fornix in eyes with presumed bacterial ulcerative keratitis. ANIMALS STUDIED: Fifty five client-owned dogs diagnosed with ulcerative keratitis. PROCEDURES: Ophthalmic examinations were performed on each dog including slit-lamp biomicroscopy and indirect ophthalmoscopy. Microbial swabs were collected by direct sampling of the infected corneal ulcer as well as the lower conjunctival fornix, of the same eye, using a sterile rayon-tipped swab. Samples were submitted to an outside reference laboratory for aerobic bacterial culture and sensitivity. RESULTS: One hundred twelve samples were obtained from 56 eyes (55 dogs). Sixty-eight samples yielded bacterial growth. Positive growth from both sites was obtained in 31 eyes (55%). Six eyes yielded bacterial growth from the conjunctival fornix but not from the cornea. No bacterial growth was obtained from either sampling site in 19 eyes. Overall, 31/56 (55%) corneal samples were positive and 37/56 (66%) conjunctival fornix samples were positive. Comparison of organisms isolated from the two collection sites of the same eye revealed an exact correlation in 42/56 (75%) eyes and differed in 14/56 (25%) eyes. Twenty different bacterial isolates were obtained from 68 positive samples. Gram-positive (71%) organisms were more common than Gram-negative (29%). The most commonly isolated organisms were Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (25%), beta-hemolytic Streptococcus spp. (23%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (12%). Methicillin-resistant organisms were isolated in 9% of samples. CONCLUSION: Sampling from the conjunctival fornix may be a suitable alternative to direct ulcer sampling in eyes with compromised corneal structural integrity.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31328879/