A Case of Fungal Endophthalmitis after Having Received Extraction of Wisdom Tooth in Healthy Woman

PURPOSE: To report a case of candida endogenous endophthalmitis in healthy women who had received extraction of wisdom tooth. CASE SUMMARY: A 65-year-old medically healthy woman who had received extraction of wisdom tooth two weeks ago, presented with floater symptoms in her left eye. Best-corrected visual acuity was 20/40 and intraocular pressure was 17 mmHg in her left eye. Inflammatory cells were found in the anterior chamber and vitreous. Fluorescein angiography showed multiple hypofluorescence without vascular leakage. With provisional diagnosis of intermediate uveitis, she was prescribed oral steroid for two weeks. After that, inflammatory cells in anterior chamber was reduced but vitreous imflammatory cell was increased and fundus examination detected newly developed infiltrated lesion at superotemporal area. The patient was presumed to have fungal endophthalmitis and immediate intravitreal voriconazole injection was performed. Three days after intravitreal voriconazole injection, diagnostic vitrectomy and intravitreal voriconazole injection were performed. Vitreous cultures revealed the growth of Candida albicans. Despite the treatment, inflammatory response in anterior chamber and vitreous rapidly increased and visual acuity was decreased to hand movement. We changed anti-fungal agent, voriconazole to Amphotericin B. Additional three-time intravitreal injection was done and therapeutic vitrectomy with oil injection were performed. After treatment, the patient's fundus markedly improved and inflammatory response was decreased. CONCLUSIONS: This case report shows candida endophthalmitis in healthy woman who had received extraction of wisdom tooth. So to diagnose endophthalmitis, patient's medical history should carefully be checked including dental care history who presented with vitreous inflammation and inflammatory infiltrated lesion at fundus.

Vitreoretinal lymphomas misdiagnosed as uveitis: Lessons learned from a case series.

Purpose: To present challenging cases of vitreoretinal lymphoma (VRL) that was misdiagnosed as uveitis because of the apparent intraocular inflammation. At the light of the new classification of intraocular lymphomas, we detail the characteristics that masqueraded the tumors and the clinical aspects that guided us to the correct diagnosis. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the patients referred to our uveitis service between January 2006 and December 2014. Results: Seven patients referred with a presumptive diagnosis of idiopathic uveitis received a final diagnosis of VRL. The median time between the onset of symptoms and definitive diagnosis was 25 months for these complex cases. The median time from presentation at our clinic to final diagnosis was 1 month. The described clinical features including dense vitreous cells and subretinal infiltrates were characteristic and tend to be present in all these chronically ill patients. Vitreous samples were collected, and all demonstrated the pathognomonic tumor cells, the specific immunoglobulin heavy chain gene rearrangements, and an interleukin (IL)‑10 to IL‑6 ratio >1. Conclusion: VRLs are severe diseases with a poor prognosis that may be misdiagnosed as idiopathic inflammatory conditions of the eye. Treatment with steroids may occult the tumors and delay the correct diagnosis. Appropriate evaluation may prompt to a timely vitreous sampling and therefore to a faster diagnosis in these peculiar cases where the correct diagnosis was delayed by several months.

Presumed Intraocular Natural Killer/T-cell Lymphoma Combined with Nasal Lymphoma

PURPOSE: To report a case of presumed intraocular natural killer/T-cell lymphoma (NKTL). CASE SUMMARY: A 61-year-old male presented with visual disturbance of the left eye for duration of 3 years. He had been treated with systemic chemotherapy and radiotherapy for nasal NKTL 1 year prior. Inflammatory reaction in the anterior chamber and vitreous opacity were observed in the left eye. The patient was diagnosed with uveitis in the left eye at a local clinic 3 years prior to visiting us. Because the patient did not respond to anti-inflammatory therapy, we performed diagnostic and therapeutic vitrectomy. Intraoperatively, vitreous opacity was thin sheet like in appearance. The vitreous specimen contained few lymphoid cells and was positive for Epstein Barr virus-encoded RNA (EBER). Systemic workups showed no metastasis to other organs. The patient was treated with systemic methotrexate chemotherapy and intravitreal methotrexate injected 3 times (once per week). During the 12-month follow-up period after the last intravitreal injection, the recurrence of lymphoma and related uveitis was not observed.

Endophthalmitis Caused by an Intraocular Cilium

PURPOSE: To report a case of intraocular cilium revealed by diagnostic vitrectomy in a case of stubborn uveitis that was unresponsive to steroid therapy. CASE SUMMARY: A 39-year-old man was referred to our hospital due to decreased vision in his right eye that started two months prior to presentation. He had previously been treated for a diagnosis of iridocyclitis. The patient's history revealed a blunt trauma to the right eye while wearing glasses after which he developed a microhyphema and was treated for traumatic iritis at another clinic 3 months ago. He was treated with topical and oral steroids after being diagnosed with iridocyclitis and had recently been prescribed additional oral cyclosporine because his condition had not improved. Ocular examination revealed inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber and vitreous cavity with hand motion vision. Ultrasonography revealed a hazy vitreous cavity but the retina was flat. Diagnostic vitrectomy with intravitreal antibiotic injection was performed and an intraocular foreign body presumed as a cilium was detected without an entrance wound on the exterior or interior surface of the eye. After removal of the foreign body, the patient's vision was completely recovered. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of chronic uveitis that do not respond to immunosuppressive treatment without a clearly definable cause, diagnostic vitrectomy should be considered, keeping in mind the possibility of intraocular foreign body.