Impression membrane for the diagnosis of XXXX .

@entity1 @entity1036 @entity1066 @entity794 @entity736
PURPOSE: To evaluate a corneal impression membrane (CIM) for isolation of bacteria, fungi and acanthamoeba in suspected @entity1036 . METHODS: Consecutive @entity1 presenting with suspected @entity1036 were included. For each @entity1 , samples were collected in a random order using a surgical blade and a 4-mm-diameter @entity736 CIM disc, and transported in brain heart infusion broth. Risk factors, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), size, location, depth and healing time of the @entity1066 were recorded. The microbial isolation rate was used to compare sampling methods. RESULTS: 130 @entity1 were included (mean age 62.6   years, SD 19.0). An antimicrobial had been used prior to presentation in 36 (27.7%) @entity1 . Mean major and minor @entity1066 diameters were 2.1   mm (SD 2.0) and 1.6   mm (SD 1.7). Mean healing time was 12.4   days (SD 13.6). BCVA at presentation and following healing was 0.7 (SD 0.7) and 0.62 (SD 0.7) (p=0.34). There were 66 isolates (50.8%); 53 (40.8%) using a CIM and 35 (26.9%) using a blade (p=0.02). @entity794 and coagulase-negative staphylococci were the commonest isolates. Isolation rate was not influenced by organism type, although in four cases Acanthamoeba spp. were isolated; three using CIM and one a blade. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the isolation of microorganisms from cases of suspected @entity1036 was significantly higher using a CIM than a surgical blade. A CIM may be a useful alternative or addition for sample collection in @entity1036 .
