4.2 Letter

First experience with Oasis Collagen SOFT SHIELD® for epithelial defect after corneal cross-linking

期刊

INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 39, 期 10, 页码 2149-2151

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-018-01070-9

关键词

Collagen soft shield; Corneal epithelial defect; Bandage contact lens; Corneal re-epithelialization; Corneal collagen cross-linking

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background To investigate response of dissolving collagen contact lenses as an alternative for bandage contact lenses, for the post-interventional care of epithelial defects after corneal cross-linking (CXL) treatment for keratoconus. Patients and methods Follow-up visits were performed at day 1, 4 and 1 month after the intervention. We reviewed notes for re-epithelialization, comfort/pain and any untoward effects of Collagen SOFT SHIELD (R). Assessment included visual acuity (VA), refraction (SE); corneal haze, epithelial erosion and pain status were assessed subjectively on a 4-point scale, from 0 (none) to 3 (severe). Results Thirty consecutive CXL patients with collagen shield application after CXL were included. Mean age was 28 years (range from 16 to 51 years old). Pre-CXL VA was 0.7 logMAR IQR 0.4-1.0; post-CXL VA at day 4 and month 1 was 0.6 logMAR IQR 0.4-0.9. Post-operative mean SE was 5.5D +/- 4.1D. In all patients, the Collagen SOFT SHIELD (R) was completely dissolved at the 4-day follow-up visit. In most cases, epithelial defect was closed at day 4, on average 0.8 +/- 0.5 days post-intervention; all epithelial defects were closed by month 1. Haze was minimal (mean haze score 1.4 +/- 0.7 at day 4 and 1.0 +/- 0.6 at 1 month). No adverse effects such as infection were observed. Conclusions This study indicates that Oasis Collagen SOFT SHIELD (R) is valuable and safe alternative to standard bandage contact lens for the treatment of epithelial defects. This outcome may be of particular interest in patients where the contact lens removal is likely to be problematic.

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

4.2
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