4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Bactericidal Efficacy of High Irradiance Ultraviolet A Photoactivation of Riboflavin Versus Standard Corneal Cross-Linking Protocol In Vitro

期刊

CORNEA
卷 41, 期 9, 页码 1166-1170

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000003031

关键词

corneal cross-linking; keratitis; riboflavin; ultraviolet light

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares the efficacy of high UVA irradiance photoactivation of riboflavin with the standard corneal cross-linking protocol on bacterial viability. The results show that high UVA irradiance photoactivation does not seem to be effective for bacterial eradication.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of high ultraviolet A (UVA) irradiance photoactivation of riboflavin (vitamin B2) versus the standard corneal cross-linking protocol on bacterial viability. Methods: Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) Newman strain and methicillin-resistant multidrug-resistant S. aureus (MDR-MRSA) USA300, CA409, CA127, GA656, and NY315 strains were exposed to a UVA energy dose of 5.4 to 6 J/cm(2) by 2 high irradiance regimens: A) 30 mW/cm(2) for 3 minutes and B) 10 mW/cm(2) for 10 minutes with B2 0.1%. Control groups included B2/UVA alone, CA409 exposed to standard B2 0.1% + UVA (3 mW/cm(2) for 30 minutes), and an untreated sample. Cell viability was assessed. Triplicate values were obtained. The Mann-Whitney test and Student t test were used for statistical analysis. Results: There was no difference comparing the median bacterial load (log CFU/mL) of the untreated samples versus regimen A: Newman P = 0.7, CA409 P = 0.3, USA300 P = 0.5, CA127 P = 0.6, GA656 P = 0.1, and NY315 P = 0.2 (P >= 0.1); and B: Newman P= 0.1, CA409 P = 0.3, USA300 P = 0.4, CA127 P = 0.6, GA656 P = 0.1, and NY315 P = 0.3 (P >= 0.1). Standard regimen killed 100% of CA409. Conclusions: Photoactivation of B2 by high UVA irradiance does not seem to be effective for bacterial eradication in this study.

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