Loading…
Comparison of Samfilcon A and Lotrafilcon B silicone hydrogel bandage contact lenses in reducing postoperative pain and accelerating re-epithelialization after photorefractive keratectomy
Purpose To compare the efficacy of Samfilcon A and Lotrafilcon B bandage contact lenses after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Methods In this study, patients with bilateral PRK were assigned for the fitting of Lotrafilcon B lens and Samfilcon A lens. The patients were examined on the day of surge...
Saved in:
| Published in: | International ophthalmology 2019-11, Vol.39 (11), p.2569-2574 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-f350dfe9e685d9f0041e310dff28291742bf629e9877791d8749e6916b4b28573 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-f350dfe9e685d9f0041e310dff28291742bf629e9877791d8749e6916b4b28573 |
| container_end_page | 2574 |
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | 2569 |
| container_title | International ophthalmology |
| container_volume | 39 |
| creator | Yuksel, Erdem Ozulken, Kemal Uzel, Mehmet Murat Taslipinar Uzel, Ayse Guzin Aydoğan, Semih |
| description | Purpose
To compare the efficacy of Samfilcon A and Lotrafilcon B bandage contact lenses after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).
Methods
In this study, patients with bilateral PRK were assigned for the fitting of Lotrafilcon B lens and Samfilcon A lens. The patients were examined on the day of surgery and on postoperative days 1, 2 and 3. Slit biomicroscopy was performed to assess epithelial defect size in the postoperative examinations. The subjective evaluation of pain and visual symptoms was recorded on postoperative days 1, 2 and 3.
Results
Analysis was made of 68 eyes of 34 patients who fulfilled the criteria and had PRK for correction of low to moderate myopia/astigmatism. On postoperative days 1 and 2, pain and epiphora scores were significantly lower in eyes with Samfilcon A lens (
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10792-019-01105-9 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2231888837</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2231888837</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-f350dfe9e685d9f0041e310dff28291742bf629e9877791d8749e6916b4b28573</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi0EokvhD3BAlrhwCYydD8fHsuJLWokD7TlykvGuSxIH20Fa_hp_rpPuAhKHWrJszzzz2p6XsZcC3goA9S4KUFpmIDRNAWWmH7GNKFWeySqHx2wDoiqzUoG4YM9ivAUArXT1lF3kAqpSQ7Fhv7d-nE1w0U_cW_7NjNYNHR2uuJl6vvMpmHPkPY9ucLRDfjj2we9x4C1BZo-cosl0iQ84RYzcTTxgv3Ru2vPZx-RnDCa5n8hnQ7lV2XQdDvdRYgJmOLt0wMGZwf2iIN1nbMLA54NPPqANJL8KfF9rsEt-PD5nT6wZIr44r5fs5uOH6-3nbPf105ft1S7rclWmzOYl9BY1VnXZawtQCKQG9NbKWmqhCtnaSmrUtVJKi75WBbFaVG3RypraecnenHTn4H8sGFMzukivH8yEfomNlLmoaeQr-vo_9NYvYaLXESUFkFydEyVPVBd8jPS5Zg5uNOHYCGhWa5uTtQ1Z29xb22gqenWWXtoR-78lf7wkID8BkVLTHsO_ux-QvQOkerKh</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2221085783</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Samfilcon A and Lotrafilcon B silicone hydrogel bandage contact lenses in reducing postoperative pain and accelerating re-epithelialization after photorefractive keratectomy</title><source>Springer Link</source><creator>Yuksel, Erdem ; Ozulken, Kemal ; Uzel, Mehmet Murat ; Taslipinar Uzel, Ayse Guzin ; Aydoğan, Semih</creator><creatorcontrib>Yuksel, Erdem ; Ozulken, Kemal ; Uzel, Mehmet Murat ; Taslipinar Uzel, Ayse Guzin ; Aydoğan, Semih</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To compare the efficacy of Samfilcon A and Lotrafilcon B bandage contact lenses after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).
Methods
In this study, patients with bilateral PRK were assigned for the fitting of Lotrafilcon B lens and Samfilcon A lens. The patients were examined on the day of surgery and on postoperative days 1, 2 and 3. Slit biomicroscopy was performed to assess epithelial defect size in the postoperative examinations. The subjective evaluation of pain and visual symptoms was recorded on postoperative days 1, 2 and 3.
Results
Analysis was made of 68 eyes of 34 patients who fulfilled the criteria and had PRK for correction of low to moderate myopia/astigmatism. On postoperative days 1 and 2, pain and epiphora scores were significantly lower in eyes with Samfilcon A lens (
p
< 0.001 for all), and on postoperative day 3, the differences were not significant (
p
= 0.414 and
p
= 0.180, respectively). There was no significant difference between the two lenses in respect of the levels of photophobia. The difference in epithelial defect size was statistically lower in eyes with Samfilcon A lens compared to Lotrafilcon B on day 1 (16.89 mm
2
vs. 21.07 mm
2
;
p
= 0.003) and day 2 (1.49 mm
2
vs. 2.46 mm
2
;
p
< 0.001). The difference was not significant on day 3. (0.05 mm
2
vs. 0.05 mm
2
;
p
= 1.000).
Conclusions
The Samfilcon A lens is superior to the Lotrafilcon B lens in reducing postoperative pain and accelerating re-epithelialization.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0165-5701</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-2630</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10792-019-01105-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31065904</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Astigmatism ; Bandages, Hydrocolloid ; Contact lenses ; Contact Lenses, Hydrophilic ; Equipment Design ; Eye ; Eye (anatomy) ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Hydrogels ; Hydrogels - pharmacology ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Myopia ; Myopia - surgery ; Ophthalmology ; Original Paper ; Pain ; Pain, Postoperative - therapy ; Photorefractive Keratectomy - adverse effects ; Photorefractivity ; Postoperative period ; Prospective Studies ; Signs and symptoms ; Silicones ; Silicones - pharmacology ; Surgery ; Time Factors ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>International ophthalmology, 2019-11, Vol.39 (11), p.2569-2574</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature B.V. 2019</rights><rights>International Ophthalmology is a copyright of Springer, (2019). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-f350dfe9e685d9f0041e310dff28291742bf629e9877791d8749e6916b4b28573</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-f350dfe9e685d9f0041e310dff28291742bf629e9877791d8749e6916b4b28573</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3713-8815</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31065904$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yuksel, Erdem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ozulken, Kemal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uzel, Mehmet Murat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taslipinar Uzel, Ayse Guzin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aydoğan, Semih</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Samfilcon A and Lotrafilcon B silicone hydrogel bandage contact lenses in reducing postoperative pain and accelerating re-epithelialization after photorefractive keratectomy</title><title>International ophthalmology</title><addtitle>Int Ophthalmol</addtitle><addtitle>Int Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>Purpose
To compare the efficacy of Samfilcon A and Lotrafilcon B bandage contact lenses after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).
Methods
In this study, patients with bilateral PRK were assigned for the fitting of Lotrafilcon B lens and Samfilcon A lens. The patients were examined on the day of surgery and on postoperative days 1, 2 and 3. Slit biomicroscopy was performed to assess epithelial defect size in the postoperative examinations. The subjective evaluation of pain and visual symptoms was recorded on postoperative days 1, 2 and 3.
Results
Analysis was made of 68 eyes of 34 patients who fulfilled the criteria and had PRK for correction of low to moderate myopia/astigmatism. On postoperative days 1 and 2, pain and epiphora scores were significantly lower in eyes with Samfilcon A lens (
p
< 0.001 for all), and on postoperative day 3, the differences were not significant (
p
= 0.414 and
p
= 0.180, respectively). There was no significant difference between the two lenses in respect of the levels of photophobia. The difference in epithelial defect size was statistically lower in eyes with Samfilcon A lens compared to Lotrafilcon B on day 1 (16.89 mm
2
vs. 21.07 mm
2
;
p
= 0.003) and day 2 (1.49 mm
2
vs. 2.46 mm
2
;
p
< 0.001). The difference was not significant on day 3. (0.05 mm
2
vs. 0.05 mm
2
;
p
= 1.000).
Conclusions
The Samfilcon A lens is superior to the Lotrafilcon B lens in reducing postoperative pain and accelerating re-epithelialization.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Astigmatism</subject><subject>Bandages, Hydrocolloid</subject><subject>Contact lenses</subject><subject>Contact Lenses, Hydrophilic</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Eye</subject><subject>Eye (anatomy)</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hydrogels</subject><subject>Hydrogels - pharmacology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Myopia</subject><subject>Myopia - surgery</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative - therapy</subject><subject>Photorefractive Keratectomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Photorefractivity</subject><subject>Postoperative period</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Signs and symptoms</subject><subject>Silicones</subject><subject>Silicones - pharmacology</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0165-5701</issn><issn>1573-2630</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi0EokvhD3BAlrhwCYydD8fHsuJLWokD7TlykvGuSxIH20Fa_hp_rpPuAhKHWrJszzzz2p6XsZcC3goA9S4KUFpmIDRNAWWmH7GNKFWeySqHx2wDoiqzUoG4YM9ivAUArXT1lF3kAqpSQ7Fhv7d-nE1w0U_cW_7NjNYNHR2uuJl6vvMpmHPkPY9ucLRDfjj2we9x4C1BZo-cosl0iQ84RYzcTTxgv3Ru2vPZx-RnDCa5n8hnQ7lV2XQdDvdRYgJmOLt0wMGZwf2iIN1nbMLA54NPPqANJL8KfF9rsEt-PD5nT6wZIr44r5fs5uOH6-3nbPf105ft1S7rclWmzOYl9BY1VnXZawtQCKQG9NbKWmqhCtnaSmrUtVJKi75WBbFaVG3RypraecnenHTn4H8sGFMzukivH8yEfomNlLmoaeQr-vo_9NYvYaLXESUFkFydEyVPVBd8jPS5Zg5uNOHYCGhWa5uTtQ1Z29xb22gqenWWXtoR-78lf7wkID8BkVLTHsO_ux-QvQOkerKh</recordid><startdate>20191101</startdate><enddate>20191101</enddate><creator>Yuksel, Erdem</creator><creator>Ozulken, Kemal</creator><creator>Uzel, Mehmet Murat</creator><creator>Taslipinar Uzel, Ayse Guzin</creator><creator>Aydoğan, Semih</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3713-8815</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20191101</creationdate><title>Comparison of Samfilcon A and Lotrafilcon B silicone hydrogel bandage contact lenses in reducing postoperative pain and accelerating re-epithelialization after photorefractive keratectomy</title><author>Yuksel, Erdem ; Ozulken, Kemal ; Uzel, Mehmet Murat ; Taslipinar Uzel, Ayse Guzin ; Aydoğan, Semih</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-f350dfe9e685d9f0041e310dff28291742bf629e9877791d8749e6916b4b28573</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Astigmatism</topic><topic>Bandages, Hydrocolloid</topic><topic>Contact lenses</topic><topic>Contact Lenses, Hydrophilic</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Eye</topic><topic>Eye (anatomy)</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hydrogels</topic><topic>Hydrogels - pharmacology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Myopia</topic><topic>Myopia - surgery</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative - therapy</topic><topic>Photorefractive Keratectomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Photorefractivity</topic><topic>Postoperative period</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Signs and symptoms</topic><topic>Silicones</topic><topic>Silicones - pharmacology</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yuksel, Erdem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ozulken, Kemal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uzel, Mehmet Murat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taslipinar Uzel, Ayse Guzin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aydoğan, Semih</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International ophthalmology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yuksel, Erdem</au><au>Ozulken, Kemal</au><au>Uzel, Mehmet Murat</au><au>Taslipinar Uzel, Ayse Guzin</au><au>Aydoğan, Semih</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Samfilcon A and Lotrafilcon B silicone hydrogel bandage contact lenses in reducing postoperative pain and accelerating re-epithelialization after photorefractive keratectomy</atitle><jtitle>International ophthalmology</jtitle><stitle>Int Ophthalmol</stitle><addtitle>Int Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>2019-11-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>2569</spage><epage>2574</epage><pages>2569-2574</pages><issn>0165-5701</issn><eissn>1573-2630</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To compare the efficacy of Samfilcon A and Lotrafilcon B bandage contact lenses after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).
Methods
In this study, patients with bilateral PRK were assigned for the fitting of Lotrafilcon B lens and Samfilcon A lens. The patients were examined on the day of surgery and on postoperative days 1, 2 and 3. Slit biomicroscopy was performed to assess epithelial defect size in the postoperative examinations. The subjective evaluation of pain and visual symptoms was recorded on postoperative days 1, 2 and 3.
Results
Analysis was made of 68 eyes of 34 patients who fulfilled the criteria and had PRK for correction of low to moderate myopia/astigmatism. On postoperative days 1 and 2, pain and epiphora scores were significantly lower in eyes with Samfilcon A lens (
p
< 0.001 for all), and on postoperative day 3, the differences were not significant (
p
= 0.414 and
p
= 0.180, respectively). There was no significant difference between the two lenses in respect of the levels of photophobia. The difference in epithelial defect size was statistically lower in eyes with Samfilcon A lens compared to Lotrafilcon B on day 1 (16.89 mm
2
vs. 21.07 mm
2
;
p
= 0.003) and day 2 (1.49 mm
2
vs. 2.46 mm
2
;
p
< 0.001). The difference was not significant on day 3. (0.05 mm
2
vs. 0.05 mm
2
;
p
= 1.000).
Conclusions
The Samfilcon A lens is superior to the Lotrafilcon B lens in reducing postoperative pain and accelerating re-epithelialization.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><pmid>31065904</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10792-019-01105-9</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3713-8815</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0165-5701 |
| ispartof | International ophthalmology, 2019-11, Vol.39 (11), p.2569-2574 |
| issn | 0165-5701 1573-2630 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2231888837 |
| source | Springer Link |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Astigmatism Bandages, Hydrocolloid Contact lenses Contact Lenses, Hydrophilic Equipment Design Eye Eye (anatomy) Female Follow-Up Studies Humans Hydrogels Hydrogels - pharmacology Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Myopia Myopia - surgery Ophthalmology Original Paper Pain Pain, Postoperative - therapy Photorefractive Keratectomy - adverse effects Photorefractivity Postoperative period Prospective Studies Signs and symptoms Silicones Silicones - pharmacology Surgery Time Factors Young Adult |
| title | Comparison of Samfilcon A and Lotrafilcon B silicone hydrogel bandage contact lenses in reducing postoperative pain and accelerating re-epithelialization after photorefractive keratectomy |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T13%3A46%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Samfilcon%20A%20and%20Lotrafilcon%20B%20silicone%20hydrogel%20bandage%20contact%20lenses%20in%20reducing%20postoperative%20pain%20and%20accelerating%20re-epithelialization%20after%20photorefractive%20keratectomy&rft.jtitle=International%20ophthalmology&rft.au=Yuksel,%20Erdem&rft.date=2019-11-01&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=2569&rft.epage=2574&rft.pages=2569-2574&rft.issn=0165-5701&rft.eissn=1573-2630&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10792-019-01105-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2231888837%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-f350dfe9e685d9f0041e310dff28291742bf629e9877791d8749e6916b4b28573%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2221085783&rft_id=info:pmid/31065904&rfr_iscdi=true |