Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Contralateral Eye Study Comparing the Clinical Outcomes of Two Types of Silicone Hydrogel Bandage Contact Lenses After Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Wang Ling, Jin Jiajia, Yan Lu, Huang Kaiyan, Chen Shihao
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To compare clinical outcomes of Lotrafilcon A and Balafilcon A silicone hydrogel bandage contact lenses (BCLs) following transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (TPRK).
METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, contralateral eye study enrolled 41 TPRK patients (82 eyes), with each eye randomly assigned one BCL type. Assessments included uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, ocular pain and irritation, epithelial healing, limbal and conjunctival hyperemia, lens mobility, and the amount of protein deposition on the BCLs.
RESULTS: Postoperative day 1 pain score was lower in Group A (2.80 ± 2.35) than in Group B (4.44 ± 2.46, p = 0.003). Group A had significantly less protein deposition (day 3: 9.92 ± 9.82 vs. 25.75 ± 9.86 μg, p < 0.001; day 4: 9.47 ± 10.06 vs. 32.60 ± 16.71 μg, p = 0.005). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of corneal epithelial defect area, corneal epithelial healing time, UDVA, CDVA, limbal or conjunctival hyperemia, and lens movement.
CONCLUSIONS: Lotrafilcon A outperformed Balafilcon A in reducing ocular pain, foreign body sensation, and protein deposition, suggesting that Lotrafilcon A may be a more suitable therapeutic BCL option following TPRK.
METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, contralateral eye study enrolled 41 TPRK patients (82 eyes), with each eye randomly assigned one BCL type. Assessments included uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, ocular pain and irritation, epithelial healing, limbal and conjunctival hyperemia, lens mobility, and the amount of protein deposition on the BCLs.
RESULTS: Postoperative day 1 pain score was lower in Group A (2.80 ± 2.35) than in Group B (4.44 ± 2.46, p = 0.003). Group A had significantly less protein deposition (day 3: 9.92 ± 9.82 vs. 25.75 ± 9.86 μg, p < 0.001; day 4: 9.47 ± 10.06 vs. 32.60 ± 16.71 μg, p = 0.005). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of corneal epithelial defect area, corneal epithelial healing time, UDVA, CDVA, limbal or conjunctival hyperemia, and lens movement.
CONCLUSIONS: Lotrafilcon A outperformed Balafilcon A in reducing ocular pain, foreign body sensation, and protein deposition, suggesting that Lotrafilcon A may be a more suitable therapeutic BCL option following TPRK.