Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Student IJMR
140 (
2
); 307-309

Microbial contamination of soft contact lenses & accessories in asymptomatic contact lens users

Department of Microbiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha, Maharashtra, India
Present address: Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492 099, India

Reprint requests: Dr Ujjwala N. Gaikwad, Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur, Chattisgarh 492 099, India e-mail: ujugaikwad@gmail.com

Licence

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Abstract

Background & objectives:

With increasing use of soft contact lenses the incidence of contact lens induced infections is also increasing. This study was aimed to assess the knowledge of new and existing contact lens users about the risk of microbial contamination associated with improper use and maintenance of contact lenses, type of microbial flora involved and their potential to cause ophthalmic infections.

Methods:

Four samples each from 50 participants (n=200) were collected from the lenses, lens care solutions, lens care solution bottles and lens cases along with a questionnaire regarding their lens use. The samples were inoculated onto sheep blood agar, Mac Conkey's agar and Sabouraud's dextrose agar. Organisms were identified using standard laboratory protocols.

Results:

Overall rate of microbial contamination among the total samples was 52 per cent. The most and the least contaminated samples were found to be lens cases (62%) and lens care solution (42%), respectively. The most frequently isolated contaminant was Staphylococcus aureus (21%) followed by Pseudomonas species (19.5%). Majority (64%) of the participants showed medium grade of compliance to lens cleaning practices. Rate of contamination was 100 and 93.75 per cent respectively in those participants who showed low and medium compliance to lens care practices as compared to those who had high level of compliance (43.75%) (P<0.05).

Interpretation & conclusions:

Lens care practices amongst the participants were not optimum which resulted into high level contamination. Hence, creating awareness among the users about the lens care practices and regular cleaning and replacements of lens cases are required.

Keywords

Contact lenses
disinfection
keratitis
lens care accessories
microbial contamination
questionnaire

Contact lenses, especially the soft contact lenses are increasingly being used for cosmetic or therapeutic purposes. Lack of compliance and poor hygiene towards lens care is strongly associated with microbial contamination and has been proved to result in eye infections12. Microbial keratitis is one of the serious complications of contact lens use and if not treated timely, may result in permanent visual damage to the cornea. In developed countries, the incidence of contact lens associated keratitis has been increased up to 30 per cent of all keratitis cases34. The present study was planned to assess the knowledge of young medical and dental students who were using contact lens about the risk of microbial contamination associated with improper use and maintenance of contact lenses, type of microbial flora involved and their potential to cause ophthalmic infections.

Material & Methods

The study was conducted at Aacharya Vinoba Bhave Rural Hospital (AVBRH) and Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha, Maharashtra, India, during April-May 2012. Fifty medical and dental students who were asymptomatic contact lens users and who volunteered to be included in the study, were asked to fill a questionnaire containing details of lens use and six steps of lens cleaning and storing protocol. Those who followed five or more steps, three or four steps and less than three steps were classified as belonging to high, medium and low compliance groups, respectively. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee and each participant gave written informed consent.

One sample each were collected from concave surface of contact lenses, lens case and tip of solution bottles with the help of sterile cotton tipped swabs that were pre- moistened with sterile brain heart infusion (BHI) broth. Sample of lens care solution was directly cultured on solid media as a drop. All samples were inoculated onto 5 per cent sheep blood agar, Mac Conkey's agar and Sabouraud's dextrose agar. The blood agar and Mac Conkey's agar were incubated at 37° C for 24-48 h, while Sabouraud's dextrose agar was incubated at 25° C and examined daily for growth of fungi and discarded at the end of three weeks. Organisms grown were identified using standard microbiological techniques5.

The data obtained were analyzed in terms of percentage contamination obtained, type of microbial flora involved and its relation with the lens care practices followed by the users using Fisher Exact test.

Results & Discussion

Thirty seven (74%) participants showed growth of organisms in at least one of the samples. Overall rate of microbial contamination among the total samples was 52 per cent (104/200). Lens case was the most contaminated sample (62%) followed by lenses (56%), tip of solution bottles (48%) and lens care solution (42%). All 104 contaminated samples grew bacteria on culture (Figure). None of the sample was positive for fungus. Pseudomonas species predominated in lenses (28%), against Staphylococcus aureus in lens cases (30%), bottles (24%) and lens care solutions (18%). Our study showed significantly higher rate of microbial contamination (P<0.05) among those who showed medium to low compliance to the lens cleaning protocol in comparison to high compliance group as shown earlier by Tuli et al6. Rates of contamination in low, medium and high compliance groups were 100, 93.75 and 43.75 per cent, respectively. Of the 50 participants, 32 were occasional users, 36 were using contact lens for >2 yr, and 18 were using for cosmetic purpose (Table).

Microbiological profile of contaminated samples. CONS, coagulase negative Staphylococcus; NFGNB, Nil fermenter Gram-negative bacilli.
Fig
Microbiological profile of contaminated samples. CONS, coagulase negative Staphylococcus; NFGNB, Nil fermenter Gram-negative bacilli.
Table Per cent distribution of contaminated samples according to the frequency, duration and reason for contact lens use

Increased rate of contamination was seen among daily users (83%) and those using lenses for purely cosmetic purposes (88%) reflecting carelessness and lack of compliance on the part of the users regarding lens care. The total rate (74%) of microbial contamination in our study was similar to the studies by Lipener et al7 (86.6%) and Emina et al8 (70.27%). Lens cases were the most frequently contaminated item (62%) followed by contact lenses as also found by others79101112.

Although Pseudomonas has been reported as the most frequent isolate from lenses and accessories3713, S. aureus was found to be the predominant isolate in our study. Yung et al9, have also found S. aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci and Serratia species as the most common microorganisms.

In conclusion, our preliminary results showed that the lens care practices amongst the participants were not optimum resulting in high level contamination. Increased awareness among the users about the lens care practices and regular cleaning and replacements of lens cases and solutions are warranted.

Acknowledgment

The first author (DVT) thanks Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi, India for the award of Short Term Studentship (STS).

References

  1. , , , . Microbial contamination of contact lenses, lens care solutions, and their accessories: a literature review. Eye Contact Lens. 2010;36:116-29.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , , , . The incidence of contact lens-related microbial keratitis in Australia. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:1655-62.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , . Microbial keratitis. In: , , , , eds. The epidemiology of eye diseases (2nd ed). London: Arnold; . p. :190-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , , , . Trends in contact lens-related corneal ulcers. Cornea. 2005;24:51-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , , . Colour atlas and textbook of diagnostic microbiology. (5th ed). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; .
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , , . Dark secrets behind the shimmer of contact lens: the Indian scenario. BMC Res Notes. 2009;2:79.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , , , , . Bacterial contamination in soft contact lens wearers. CLAO J. 1995;21:122-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , . Bacteria and parasites in contact lenses of asymptomatic wearers in Nigeria. J Optom. 2011;4:69-74.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , . Microbial contamination of contact lenses and lens care accessories of soft contact lens wearers (university students) in Hong Kong. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2007;27:11-21.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , . Bacterial contamination among soft contact lens wearer. Pak J Ophthalmol. 2008;24:93-6.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , . Microbial contamination of contact lens cases in the west of Scotland. Br J Ophthalmol. 1993;77:41-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. , , , , . Acanthamoeba, bacterial and fungal contamination of contact lens storage cases. Br J Ophthalmol. 1995;79:601-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , . Bacterial contamination of contact lenses among some female students and employees of College of Education Ibn AL Haitham, University of Baghdad. Ibn Al Haitham J pure Appl sci. 2008;21:9-22.
    [Google Scholar]
Show Sections
Scroll to Top