4.3 Article

Inflammatory Cells and Lipid Deposits Detected by in Vivo Confocal Microscopy in Brimonidine Tartrate Ophthalmic Solution-Related Corneal Disorders: A Case Series

期刊

OCULAR IMMUNOLOGY AND INFLAMMATION
卷 31, 期 9, 页码 1842-1847

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/09273948.2022.2137045

关键词

Brimonidine tartrate; confocal microscopy; corneal opacity; dendritic cells; drug-related side effects and adverse reactions; glaucoma; lipids; neutrophils

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reviewed the medical charts of five patients with brimonidine tartrate (BT)-related corneal disorders. Four patients had fan-shaped corneal opacity, while one patient had limbal corneal infiltrations. Confocal microscopy showed dendritic cells and lipid deposits in the fan-shaped opacity and neutrophils in limbal infiltrations. Discontinuation of BT and corticosteroid treatment improved the limbal infiltrations, but the fan-shaped opacity persisted. Therefore, it is important to discontinue BT and initiate anti-inflammatory treatment before the development of a fan-shaped opacity.
We reviewed the medical charts of five patients diagnosed with brimonidine tartrate (BT)-related corneal disorders. A fan-shaped corneal opacity was present in four patients and limbal corneal infiltrations were present in one patient. In vivo confocal microscopy revealed dendritic cells and lipid deposits in the fan-shaped opacity as well as neutrophils in limbal infiltrations. BT instillation was discontinued and topical administration of a corticosteroid was initiated for all patients. The limbal infiltrations improved after BT discontinuation. Conversely, the fan-shaped opacity remained in all affected patients. After a fan-shaped opacity has developed in a patient with a BT-related corneal disorder, the lesion is difficult to resolve. However, limbal infiltrations respond well to treatment. Therefore, BT should be discontinued and anti-inflammatory treatment initiated before a fan-shaped opacity forms.

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

4.3
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