Display options
Share it on

Scientifica (Cairo). 2016;2016:6313070. doi: 10.1155/2016/6313070. Epub 2016 Jun 14.

A Pathological Analysis of Canaliculitis Concretions: More Than Just Actinomyces.

Scientifica

Balaji Perumal, John Andrew Carlson, Dale Robert Meyer

Affiliations

  1. Lions Eye Institute, Albany Medical Center, 1220 New Scotland Road, Slingerlands, NY 12159, USA.
  2. Department of Pathology, Albany Medical Center, 47 New Scotland Avenue, Albany, NY 12208, USA.

PMID: 27403375 PMCID: PMC4923580 DOI: 10.1155/2016/6313070

Abstract

Purpose. Canaliculitis is classically associated with Actinomyces species, which are filamentous bacteria; the purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent to which nonfilamentous bacteria colonize canalicular concretions by using graded histopathological analysis. Methods. This is a series of 16 cases. The percentage of Gram-positive/Gomori's methenamine silver-positive filamentous bacteria (Actinomyces) versus the total bacteria identified was graded, and the types of bacteria seen were recorded. Nonfilamentous bacteria were categorized based upon Gram stain (positive or negative) and morphology (cocci or rods). Results. There were 11 females and 5 males. Nonfilamentous bacteria were identified in 16 of 16 (100%) specimens and filamentous bacteria were identified in 15 of 16 (94%) specimens. The mean percentage of filamentous bacteria relative to total bacteria was 57%. Regarding the nonfilamentous bacteria present, 69% of specimens had Gram-positive cocci only, 25% had Gram-positive and Gram-negative cocci, and 6% had Gram-positive cocci and Gram-positive rods. Conclusion. In the current study, there was a mix of filamentous and nonfilamentous bacteria in almost all canalicular concretions analyzed. Nonfilamentous bacteria may contribute to the pathogenesis of canaliculitis. In addition, the success of bacterial culture can be variable; therefore, pathological analysis can assist in determining the etiology.

References

  1. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Nov-Dec;25(6):481-4 - PubMed
  2. Ophthalmology. 2009 Oct;116(10):2027-30.e2 - PubMed
  3. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006 Oct;90(10):1236-8 - PubMed
  4. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Sep-Oct;28(5):355-60 - PubMed
  5. Int J Dermatol. 1983 Oct;22(8):455-8 - PubMed
  6. Orbit. 2004 Mar;23(1):19-26 - PubMed
  7. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Mar-Apr;28(2):126-33 - PubMed
  8. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992 Feb;110(2):200-2 - PubMed
  9. Hum Pathol. 1973 Sep;4(3):319-30 - PubMed
  10. Eye (Lond). 1993;7 ( Pt 4):542-4 - PubMed
  11. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011 Dec;89(8):759-63 - PubMed
  12. Ophthalmic Surg. 1980 Jul;11(7):435-6 - PubMed
  13. Can J Ophthalmol. 1980 Apr;15(2):73-5 - PubMed
  14. Br J Ophthalmol. 1997 Jan;81(1):37-40 - PubMed
  15. Br J Ophthalmol. 1988 Jun;72(6):448-51 - PubMed
  16. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1987 Mar;111(3):246-9 - PubMed
  17. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Mar-Apr;31(2):119-21 - PubMed
  18. Surv Ophthalmol. 2011 Jul-Aug;56(4):336-47 - PubMed
  19. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995 May;53(5):599-605 - PubMed
  20. Ophthalmologica. 1994;208(6):314-7 - PubMed
  21. Ophthalmology. 2009 Nov;116(11):2230-5 - PubMed
  22. Clin Dermatol. 2012 Jul-Aug;30(4):397-402 - PubMed

Publication Types