Eye & contact lens · 2021
Frequency of Contact Lens Complications Between Contact Lens Wearers Using Multipurpose Solutions Versus Hydrogen Peroxide in the United States and Canada.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tichenor Anna A, Cofield Stacey S, Gann Drew, Elder Marian, Ng Alison, Walsh Karen, Jones Lyndon W, Nichols Jason J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively compare frequency of contact lens (CL) complications in soft CL users of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and multipurpose solutions (MPS).
METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective chart review of CL records from each patient's three most recent eye examinations at academic and private practices. Patients must have used the same solution type for at least 3 years. Univariate analyses were conducted using t tests, and chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical measures.
RESULTS: There were 1,137 patients included, with 670 (59%) using MPS and 467 (41%) H2O2. In total, 706 (62%) experienced at least one complication; 409 used MPS and 297 used H2O2. There was no difference in the proportion of patients experiencing at least one complication between MPS (61%) and H2O2 (64%) (P=0.38). Multipurpose solutions users were more likely to report discomfort compared with H2O2 users (P=0.04). Presumed microbial keratitis was experienced by 16 MPS and nine H2O2 users (P=0.60).
CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found in the frequency of CL complications between MPS and H2O2. H2O2 users were less likely to report discomfort and thus switching to a H2O2 system may be an alternative in CL users with discomfort.
METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective chart review of CL records from each patient's three most recent eye examinations at academic and private practices. Patients must have used the same solution type for at least 3 years. Univariate analyses were conducted using t tests, and chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical measures.
RESULTS: There were 1,137 patients included, with 670 (59%) using MPS and 467 (41%) H2O2. In total, 706 (62%) experienced at least one complication; 409 used MPS and 297 used H2O2. There was no difference in the proportion of patients experiencing at least one complication between MPS (61%) and H2O2 (64%) (P=0.38). Multipurpose solutions users were more likely to report discomfort compared with H2O2 users (P=0.04). Presumed microbial keratitis was experienced by 16 MPS and nine H2O2 users (P=0.60).
CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found in the frequency of CL complications between MPS and H2O2. H2O2 users were less likely to report discomfort and thus switching to a H2O2 system may be an alternative in CL users with discomfort.