Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2015
A study comparing standard and transepithelial collagen cross-linking riboflavin solutions: epithelial findings and pain scores.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Yuksel Erdem, Novruzlu Shahin, Ozmen Mehmet C, Bilgihan Kamil
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate epithelial signs and pain after epithelial-on corneal collagen cross-linking (Epi-on CCL) with new transepithelial riboflavin formulation and epithelial-off corneal collagen cross-linking (Epi-off CCL) with standard riboflavin formulation and to compare pain and duration of epithelial healing between both techniques.
METHODS: Thirty-nine eyes of 39 patients undergoing Epi-on CCL and 39 eyes of 39 patients undergoing Epi-off CCL were evaluated. Corneal epithelial signs and durations of corneal epithelial healing and subjective pain scores after the procedures were recorded and compared between 2 groups.
RESULTS: Total epithelialization was observed after 2.7 ± 0.7 days in Epi-on CCL and 2.3 ± 0.4 days in Epi-off CCL (P = 0.006). The mean pain score on the first day was 3.1 ± 0.6 in Epi-on CCL and 2.3 ± 0.4 in Epi-off CCL with a significant difference (P = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: The epithelial damage was observed in both procedures; also, the epithelial healing time was longer in Epi-on CCL and it is of great importance that the patients should have therapeutic contact lenses until the epithelium heals in both procedures. The Epi-off CCL group had less pain scores than the Epi-on CCL group and more pain problems after Epi-on CCL still remains. The patient should be informed about pain, even if the Epi-on CCL procedure was performed.
METHODS: Thirty-nine eyes of 39 patients undergoing Epi-on CCL and 39 eyes of 39 patients undergoing Epi-off CCL were evaluated. Corneal epithelial signs and durations of corneal epithelial healing and subjective pain scores after the procedures were recorded and compared between 2 groups.
RESULTS: Total epithelialization was observed after 2.7 ± 0.7 days in Epi-on CCL and 2.3 ± 0.4 days in Epi-off CCL (P = 0.006). The mean pain score on the first day was 3.1 ± 0.6 in Epi-on CCL and 2.3 ± 0.4 in Epi-off CCL with a significant difference (P = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: The epithelial damage was observed in both procedures; also, the epithelial healing time was longer in Epi-on CCL and it is of great importance that the patients should have therapeutic contact lenses until the epithelium heals in both procedures. The Epi-off CCL group had less pain scores than the Epi-on CCL group and more pain problems after Epi-on CCL still remains. The patient should be informed about pain, even if the Epi-on CCL procedure was performed.