Advertisement

International Ophthalmology

, Volume 39, Issue 11, pp 2569–2574 | Cite as

Comparison of Samfilcon A and Lotrafilcon B silicone hydrogel bandage contact lenses in reducing postoperative pain and accelerating re-epithelialization after photorefractive keratectomy

  • Erdem YukselEmail author
  • Kemal Ozulken
  • Mehmet Murat Uzel
  • Ayse Guzin Taslipinar Uzel
  • Semih Aydoğan
Original Paper
  • 79 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of Samfilcon A and Lotrafilcon B bandage contact lenses after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).

Methods

In this study, patients with bilateral PRK were assigned for the fitting of Lotrafilcon B lens and Samfilcon A lens. The patients were examined on the day of surgery and on postoperative days 1, 2 and 3. Slit biomicroscopy was performed to assess epithelial defect size in the postoperative examinations. The subjective evaluation of pain and visual symptoms was recorded on postoperative days 1, 2 and 3.

Results

Analysis was made of 68 eyes of 34 patients who fulfilled the criteria and had PRK for correction of low to moderate myopia/astigmatism. On postoperative days 1 and 2, pain and epiphora scores were significantly lower in eyes with Samfilcon A lens (p < 0.001 for all), and on postoperative day 3, the differences were not significant (p = 0.414 and p = 0.180, respectively). There was no significant difference between the two lenses in respect of the levels of photophobia. The difference in epithelial defect size was statistically lower in eyes with Samfilcon A lens compared to Lotrafilcon B on day 1 (16.89 mm2 vs. 21.07 mm2; p = 0.003) and day 2 (1.49 mm2 vs. 2.46 mm2; p < 0.001). The difference was not significant on day 3. (0.05 mm2 vs. 0.05 mm2; p = 1.000).

Conclusions

The Samfilcon A lens is superior to the Lotrafilcon B lens in reducing postoperative pain and accelerating re-epithelialization.

Keywords

Photorefractive keratectomy Bandage contact lens Samfilcon A Lotrafilcon B Epithelial defect size 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Ghadhfan F, Al-Rajhi A, Wagoner MD (2007) Laser in situ keratomileusis versus surface ablation: visual outcomes and complications. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:2041–2048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Woreta FA, Gupta A, Hochstetler B et al (2013) Management of postphotorefractive keratectomy pain. Surv Ophthalmol 58:529–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    El-Maghraby A, Salah T, Waring GO III et al (1999) Randomized bilateral comparison of excimer laser in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for 2.50 to 8.00 diopters of myopia. Ophthalmology 106:447–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edwards JD, Bower KS, Sediq DA et al (2008) Effects of lotrafilcon A and omafilcon A bandage contact lenses on visual outcomes after photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:1288–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Razmjoo H, Abdi E, Atashkadi S et al (2012) Comparative study of two silicone hydrogel contact lenses used as bandage contact lenses after photorefractive keratectomy. Int J Prev Med 3:718–722PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fay J, Juthani V (2015) Current trends in pain management after photorefractive and phototherapeutic keratectomy. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 26:255–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brilakis HS, Deutsch TA (2000) Topical tetracaine with bandage soft contact lens pain control after photorefractive keratectomy. J Refract Surg 16:444–447PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cherry PM (1996) The treatment of pain following excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy: additive effect of local anesthetic drops, topical diclofenac, and bandage soft contact. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers 27:477–480Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erie JC (2003) Corneal wound healing after photorefractive keratectomy: a 3-year confocal microscopy study. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 101:293–333PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grentzelos Ma, Plainis S, Astyrakakis NI et al (2009) Efficacy of 2 types of silicone hydrogel bandage contact lenses after photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:2103–2108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Plaka A, Grentzelos MA, Astyrakakis NI et al (2013) Efficacy of two silicone-hydrogel contact lenses for bandage use after photorefractive keratectomy. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 36:243–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mohammadpour M, Mohajernezhadfard Z, Khodabande A et al (2011) Antibiotic susceptibility patterns of pseudomonas corneal ulcers in contact lens wearers. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 18:228–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mohammadpour M, Heidari Z, Hashemi H et al (2018) Comparison of the Lotrafilcon B and Comfilcon A silicone hydrogel bandage contact lens on postoperative ocular discomfort after photorefractive keratectomy. Eye Contact Lens 44:S273–S276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eliaçık M, Erdur SK, Gülkılık G et al (2015) Compare the effects of two silicone-hydrogel bandage contact lenses on epithelial healing after photorefractive keratectomy with anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 38:215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mohammadpour M, Amouzegar A, Hashemi H et al (2015) Comparison of Lotrafilcon B and Balafilcon A silicone hydrogel bandage contact lenses in reducing pain and discomfort after photorefracitve keratectomy: a contralateral eye study. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 38:211–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taylor KR, Caldwell MC, Payne AM et al (2014) Comparison of 3 silicone hydrogel bandage soft contact lenses for pain control after photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:1798–1804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schafer J, Reindel W, Steffen R et al (2018) Use of a novel extended blink test to evaluate the performance of two polyvinylpyrrolidone-containing, silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Clin Ophthalmol 3(12):819–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Blackmore SJ (2010) The use of contact lenses in the treatment of persistent epithelial defects. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 33:239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Farrar JT, Young JP Jr, LaMoreaux L et al (2001) Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 94:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ophthalmology Department, Faculty of MedicineKastamonu UniversityKastamonuTurkey
  2. 2.Ophthalmology DepartmentTobb-Etu University HospitalAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Ophthalmology DepartmentAfyonkarahisar State HospitalAfyonkarahisarTurkey
  4. 4.Ophthalmology DepartmentAfyonkarahisar Sandıklı State HospitalAfyonkarahisarTurkey
  5. 5.Ophthalmology DepartmentWorld Eye HospitalAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations