4.5 Article

Therapeutic outcomes of combined topical autologous serum eye drops with silicone-hydrogel soft contact lenses in the treatment of corneal persistent epithelial defects: A preliminary study

期刊

CONTACT LENS & ANTERIOR EYE
卷 39, 期 6, 页码 425-430

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2016.06.003

关键词

Corneal epithelial defects; Autologous serum eye drops; Silicone-hydrogel contact lens; Persistent epithelial defects; Bandage contact lenses

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of the combination of topical 20% autologous serum eye drops (ASEs) and silicone-hydrogel soft contact lenses (SCLs) for the treatment of corneal persistent epithelial defects (PEDs), and to compare the recurrence of epithelial breakdown with or without continuous use of ASEs after silicone-hydrogel SCLs removal. Methods: We conducted a prospective interventional study of 21 eyes of 21 patients with PEDs treated with combined ASEs and silicone-hydrogel SCLs from September 2014 to August 2015. SCLs were removed after total re-epithelialization and patients were subsequently randomized divided into two groups: (1) with and (2) without continuous use of ASEs for an additional 2 center dot weeks. PEDs healing rate and epithelial defect recurrence were evaluated. Results: PEDs healed in all eyes within 3 weeks. Recurrence was noted in five eyes (50%) in patients without continued use of ASEs for 2 weeks after total re-epithelialization and SCLs removal during a 3 month follow-up (odds ratio: 23.0; P < 0.05). Recurrent epithelial defects were successfully treated with secondary SCLs application combined with autologous serum use. No adverse events were noted during the entire treatment period. Conclusions: The combined use of ASEs and silicone-hydrogel SCLs can successfully treat recalcitrant PEDs. Prolonged use of ASEs after total re-epithelialization can decrease recurrence rates. (C) 2016 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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