4.4 Article

Iontophoretic treatment of experimental pseudomonas keratitis in rabbit eyes using gentamicin-loaded hydrogels

Journal

CORNEA
Volume 25, Issue 10, Pages 1182-1186

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ico.0000243959.14651.18

Keywords

iontophoresis; cornea; gentamicin; hydrogel; keratitis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of iontophoresis using a hydrogel probe containing gentamicin for the treatment of Pseudomonas keratitis in the rabbit cornea. Methods: Five groups (Groups 1-5) of 8 rabbits each were infected by injecting Pseudomonas aeruginosa into their corneas. Three dosings of corneal iontophoresis were performed, at intervals of 3.5 hours, using soft disposable gentamicin-loaded hydroxyethyl methacrylate hydrogel discs mounted on a portable iontophoretic device. Groups I and 2 were treated with corneal iontophoresis for 60 seconds and a current of 0.5 and 0.2 mA. Groups 3 and 4 were treated with hydrogel loaded with 0.9% NaCl solution, using a current of 0.2 mA and mock iontophoresis. Group 5 was treated with eye drops of 1.4% gentamicin every hour for 8 hours. One and a half hours after the last treatment, the animals were killed, and the corneas were excised and cultured for P aeruginosa count after 24-hour incubation. Results: After iontophoretic treatment of gentamicin with a current of 0.5 mA (Group 1), the logarithmic value of Pseudomonas colony-forming units (CFUs) was 2.96 +/- 0.45. After lower current iontophoretic treatment (Group 2), the logarithmic Pseudomonas count was 5.25 +/- 0.54 CFUs. At the control groups (Groups 3-5), the Pseudomonas counts were found to be much higher, 7.62 +/- 0.28, 7.22 +/- 0.29, and 6.29 +/- 0.45 CFUs, respectively. Conclusion: A short iontophoretic treatment using gentamicin-loaded hydrogels has potential clinical value in treating corneal infections.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available