Clinical optometry · 2026
In vitro Sorption of Lysozyme in Reusable Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lenses: The Impact of Material and Care Solution.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Bahr Charles, Kitamura Megumi, Hisamura Ryuji, Takeichi Ryohei, Schnider Cristina, Yamasaki Katsuhide
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To characterize lysozyme sorption and denaturation in two SiHy lens materials (comfilcon A and Lotrafilcon B), and compare the effects of three lens care systems - one based on the disinfectant povidone-iodine that contains the protease subtilisin, one based on hydrogen peroxide, and one multipurpose solution - on their ability to remove lysozyme from these lens materials, via established methods.
METHODS: Test lenses were exposed to an artificial tear solution to simulate in vitro deposition. Lysozyme sorption and denaturation were quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography and a Micrococcus assay. Confocal laser scanning microscopy with fluorescently labeled lysozyme was used to localize sorption within the lenses and quantify removal following treatment with the three care systems.
RESULTS: Comfilcon A sorbed 1.01 ± 0.16 µg of lysozyme after one day of simulated wear in vitro, with 87 ± 17% of that penetrating the lens bulk. Lotrafilcon B similarly sorbed 0.94 ± 0.19 µg after one cycle, although nearly 100% was retained at the lens surface. All three contact lens care systems removed a significant proportion of lysozyme from comfilcon A (p <0.05). The PVP-I-based solution removed significantly more lysozyme from Lotrafilcon B than the other two systems (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Lysozyme deposition remains a persistent issue with reusable silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Differential lens properties may affect its sorption, denaturation, and the cleaning efficacy of different lens care systems. These preliminary data suggest that enzymatic removal of protein with a PVP-I-based system may contribute to more consistent outcomes for reusable SiHy lens wearers.
METHODS: Test lenses were exposed to an artificial tear solution to simulate in vitro deposition. Lysozyme sorption and denaturation were quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography and a Micrococcus assay. Confocal laser scanning microscopy with fluorescently labeled lysozyme was used to localize sorption within the lenses and quantify removal following treatment with the three care systems.
RESULTS: Comfilcon A sorbed 1.01 ± 0.16 µg of lysozyme after one day of simulated wear in vitro, with 87 ± 17% of that penetrating the lens bulk. Lotrafilcon B similarly sorbed 0.94 ± 0.19 µg after one cycle, although nearly 100% was retained at the lens surface. All three contact lens care systems removed a significant proportion of lysozyme from comfilcon A (p <0.05). The PVP-I-based solution removed significantly more lysozyme from Lotrafilcon B than the other two systems (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Lysozyme deposition remains a persistent issue with reusable silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Differential lens properties may affect its sorption, denaturation, and the cleaning efficacy of different lens care systems. These preliminary data suggest that enzymatic removal of protein with a PVP-I-based system may contribute to more consistent outcomes for reusable SiHy lens wearers.