Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=28892889
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\28892889
.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117 J+Clin+Diagn+Res
2017 ; 11
(7
): DC10-DC12
Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
Fungal Rhinosinusitis: Microbiological and Histopathological Perspective
#MMPMID28892889
Singh AK
; Gupta P
; Verma N
; Khare V
; Ahamad A
; Verma V
; Agarwal SP
J Clin Diagn Res
2017[Jul]; 11
(7
): DC10-DC12
PMID28892889
show ga
INTRODUCTION: On the basis of histopathology Fungal Rhinosinusitis (FRS) is
categorized into non-invasive (allergic fungal rhinosinusitis, fungal ball) and
invasive (acute invasive, chronic invasive and granulomatous invasive fungal
sinusitis). This differentiation helps to decide the treatment. Role of latest
molecular methods such as PCR and conventional methods such as KOH microscopy and
culture also needs to be evaluated. Therefore, in this study we planned to
categorise fungal rhinosinusitis on the basis of histopathology and compare it
with other methods such as PCR, culture and KOH microscopy. AIM: To analyse
fungal rhinosinusitis cases by both histopathologically and microbiologically.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 76 clinically suspected fungal rhinosinusitis
cases were included in the study. The tissue of suspected cases were processed
and examined by KOH microscopy, histopathologically, culture and PCR.
Histopathological examination was done by PAS, GMS and H&E stain. RESULTS: FRS
was diagnosed in 37 (48.68%) cases out of 76 clinically suspected cases of FRS.
In which 17 (22.3%) cases were positive by direct microscopy, 21 (27.6%) by
culture, 27 (35.5%) by PCR and 14 (18.42%) by histopathology. Approximately 14
cases of FRS were classified according to histopathology; 10 (71.3%) as
non-invasive FRS. Out of these 10, 9 (64.2%) were classified as AFRS and 1
(7.14%) as fungal ball. Only 4 cases (28.5%) were diagnosed with invasive FRS.
Out of these 4 cases, 2 (14.2%) were of chronic invasive fungal rhinosinusitis, 1
(7.14%) was of granulomatous invasive fungal rhinosinusitis and 1 (7.14%) was of
acute fulminant invasive fungal rhinosinusitis. Allergic Fungal Rhinosinusitis
(AFRS) is the most common type of FRS. Aspergillus flavus was found to be the
most common fungi causing FRS. CONCLUSION: Diagnosis should not be based on the
single method. It should be done by both histopathological and microbiological
methods, especially for those cases which are difficult to diagnose.