Bacterial adhesion to conventional hydrogel and new silicone-hydrogel contact lens materials
- First Online:
- 599 Downloads
As bacterial adhesion to contact lenses may contribute to the pathogenesis of keratitis, the aim of our study was to investigate in vitro adhesion of clinically relevant bacteria to conventional hydrogel (standard HEMA) and silicone-hydrogel contact lenses using a bioluminescent ATP assay.
Four types of unworn contact lenses (Etafilcon A, Galyfilcon A, Balafilcon A, Lotrafilcon B) were incubated with Staphylococcus epidermidis (two different strains) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa suspended in phosphate buffered saline (PBS). Lenses were placed with the posterior surface facing up and were incubated in the bacterial suspension for 4 hours at 37°C. Bacterial binding was then measured and studied by bioluminescent ATP assay. Six replicate experiments were performed for each lens and strain.
Adhesion of all species of bacteria to standard HEMA contact lenses (Etafilcon A) was found to be significantly lower than that of three types of silicone-hydrogel contact lenses, whereas Lotrafilcon B material showed the highest level of bacterial binding. Differences between species in the overall level of adhesion to the different types of contact lenses were observed. Adhesion of P. aeruginosa was typically at least 20 times greater than that observed with both S. epidermidis strains.
Conventional hydrogel contact lenses exhibit significantly lower bacterial adhesion in vitro than silicone-hydrogel ones. This could be due to the greater hydrophobicity but also to the higher oxygen transmissibility of silicone–hydrogel lenses.
KeywordsKeratitis Contact lenses Bacterial adhesion Bioluminescence Silicone-hydrogel
- 1.Morgan PB, Woods C, Jones D, Efron N, Tan KO, Gonzalez MY, Pesinova A, Grein HJ, Runberg SE, Tranoudis IG, Chandrinos A, Fine P, Montani G, Morani E, Itoi M, Bendoriene J, van der Worp E, Helland M, Phillips G, Belousov V, Barr JT (2007) International contact lens prescribing in 2006. Contact Lens Spectr 22:34–38Google Scholar
- 2.Sweeney D (2004) Silicone hydrogels. Continuous-wear contact lenses, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
- 11.Ludwicka A, Jansen B, Wadstrom T, Pulverer G (1984) Attachment of staphylococci to various synthetic polymers. Zentralbl Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg [A] 256:479–489Google Scholar
- 12.Sheehan D (2000) Spectroscopic techniques. In physical biochemistry: principles and applications. Wiley, Chichester, pp 61–120Google Scholar
- 13.Champiat D (1992) Biochimiluminescence and biotechnology. Le technoscope de Biofutur 51:8Google Scholar
- 14.Campbell A (1988) Chemiluminescence: principles and applications in biology and medicine. VCH, Ellis Horwood Ltd., New York, p. 265Google Scholar
- 28.Ruther P, Vincent R (1980) The adhesion of microorganisms to surfaces, physico–chemical aspects. In: Berkeley RCW, Melling LJJ, Rutter PR, Vincent B (eds) Microbial adhesion to surfaces. Ellis Horwwod, London, pp 79–91Google Scholar
- 32.Jones L, Long J (2002) The impact of contact lens care regimens on the in vitro wettability of conventional and silicone-hydrogel contact lens materials. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci: ARVO abstract # 3097Google Scholar
- 38.Cavanagh HD, Ladage PM, Li SL, Yamamoto K, Molai M, Ren DH, Petroll WM, Jester JV (2002) Effects of daily and overnight wear of a novel hyper oxygen-transmissible soft contact lens on bacterial binding and corneal epithelium: a 13-month clinical trial. Ophthalmology 109:1957–1969PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar