eye question

[questioner443]

Hi Doc

i have a question regarding a potential eye exposure.  

About 8 weeks ago i was at a strip club  and fingered one of the strippers who is also  csw.  About three days later I developed an eye infection.  it turned out to be styes.  After  a couple of weeks, the eye healed up.

To me, this was evidence that bacteria of some sort was introduced to my eye.  my doctor thought it was a staph infection.  But, my concern is that i may have introduced vaginal fluid from my fingers to eye.   Assuming i did, i have a few questions.

1. is it possible to acquire hiv this way - if so what are the odds
2. as  a precautionary measure, i tested at 6 weeks - negative
3. would antibodies show up just as quickly through this route of transmission (the eye) - or would it be delayed longer
4. should i have another test or am i over-thinking this

Finally, i would like to say this is a great site.  in my opinion a lot of the men on this site, including myself, are far less educated on std's than women.  i think it's due to our lack of interactions and testing that women routinely go through.  

Thanks for the advice
db

[questioner443]

Best wishes to everyone else.  

[questioner443]

Hi Doc

I appreciate your response regarding my theoretical concern.  

You two are so nice to offer this forum and it seems you are answering questions at all hours of the day.  Thank you.  

db

[Edward W Hook, MD]

Welcome to the HIV Forum.  The potential exposure you describe is not a reason for concern or worry.  Your are correct that most sty’s are caused by staph and thus your recent sty was coincidental to your visit to the strip club, not related.  

Transfer of HIV on a person’s finger from one person to another is unheard of.  The virus does not live well outside the body and with each transfer from one surface (like from the vaginal to the finger or from the finer to the eye) the amount of material diminishes hugely.  This, combined with the fact that your partner is unlikely to even have HIV (most CSWs do not have HIV) make infection virtually impossible from a theoretical perspective. That you have a negative blood test at 6 weeks serves to verify what I have said and effectively prove that you did not get HIV from the exposure you describe (at 6 weeks well over 95% of infections would be detectable and with newer tests which are, in general, in use at this time, this figure is probably closer to 98-99%.

Now, to address your specific questions:

1.  Transmission of HIV in this way has not been described and you are not going to be the first.
2.  See above.  This essentially proves that you did not get HIV form the exposure you mention.
3.  Yes, if infection could occur this way, antibodies would be detectable just as soon through this route as through others.
4.  No, there is no need for further testing.  You can move forward from here with confidence that you did not get HIV form the exposure you described.

Take care. EWH