4.4 Article

Confocal Microscopy of Epithelial and Langerhans Cells of the Cornea in Patients Using Travoprost Drops Containing Two Different Preservatives

期刊

PATHOLOGY & ONCOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 741-746

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12253-014-9755-0

关键词

Benzalkonium chloride; Confocal microscopy; Langerhans cell; Polyquaternium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recently developed confocal cornea microscopy offers the opportunity to examine pathologies of the cornea and to gain insight into the activity of innate immunity. We aimed to investigate the corneal epithelial and Langerhans cell (LC) densities along with dry eye parameters in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) subjects, treated with either of two commercially available travoprost 0.004 % topical medications containing different preservatives. (1: benzalkonium chloride 0.015 % (TravBAK) and 2: polyquaternium-1 (PQ) 0.001 % (TravPQ). Consecutive case series of nineteen POAG patients on TravBAK (mean age: 64.8 +/- 13.6 years), nineteen POAG patients on TravPQ (mean age: 66.8 +/- 11.3 years) and nineteen age-matched healthy control subjects (63.8 +/- 8.2 years). Ocular surface disease index (OSDI), lid parallel conjunctival folds (LIPCOF), Schirmer test (ST) and tear break up time (TBUT) were assessed, and then corneal epithelial and LC densities were investigated with confocal microscopy. Tear production was significantly reduced in both glaucoma patient groups compared to healthy individuals (p < 0.05). TBUT was significantly reduced and epithelial cell densities were significantly greater in patients treated with TravBAK compared to healthy individuals (p < 0.05 for all). LC densities were greater in both glaucoma groups compared to control subjects (p < 0.05 for all). Travoprost therapy may compromise ocular surface. The limited alertness of the corneal immune system found in patients with TravPQ can be considered as indicators of a less disturbed ocular surface and better controlled corneal homeostasis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据