4.2 Article

Comparison of Samfilcon A and Lotrafilcon B silicone hydrogel bandage contact lenses in reducing postoperative pain and accelerating re-epithelialization after photorefractive keratectomy

Journal

INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 11, Pages 2569-2574

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-019-01105-9

Keywords

Photorefractive keratectomy; Bandage contact lens; Samfilcon A; Lotrafilcon B; Epithelial defect size

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available