Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of topical 0.7% dexamethasone–cyclodextrin with 0.1% dexamethasone sodium phosphate for postcataract inflammation

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

To compare 0.7% dexamethasone–cyclodextrin aqueous eye drop solution applied once daily with 0.1% dexamethasone sodium phosphate eye drops applied three times a day for the control of postoperative inflammation after cataract surgery.

Methods

Twenty cataract patients who underwent phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation were randomly divided into two postoperative treatment groups. Postoperative medication in group I included 0.1% dexamethasone sodium phosphate eye drops three times daily and in group II 0.7% dexamethasone–cyclodextrin eye drop solution once daily. Testing of visual acuity, biomicroscopic examination, applanation tonometry and laser flare cell meter (LFCM) examination were carried out before operation and days 1, 3, 7 and 21 after surgery.

Results

Preoperative and postoperative visual acuity, aqueous flare and cells in biomicroscopic examination, and the mean intraocular pressure did not show any statistically significant differences between the treatment groups. LFCM examination showed that the mean postoperative photon count values (P=0.032) and the median cell count values on the 1st (P=0.014), 3rd (P=0.031), 7th (P=0.034), and 21st (P=0.0097) postoperative days in group I were more elevated than in group II.

Conclusions

0.7% dexamethasone–cyclodextrin eye drops applied once daily is a more effective postoperative anti-inflammatory medication than 0.1% dexamethasone sodium phosphate applied three times a day. In both groups, 3 weeks after the operation the mean visual acuity was normal and intraocular pressure significantly lower than before operation. The use of 0.7% dexamethasone–cyclodextrin eye drops may be useful especially in elderly people who cannot apply themselves the eye drops onto the eye.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Forrester JV, Dick AD, McMenamin P, Lee WR (1999) The eye. Basic sciences in practice. WB Saunders, Edinburg London New York, pp 168–169 and 261–262

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gordon DM (1995) Dexamethasone in ophthalmology. Am J Ophthalmol 48:656–660

    Google Scholar 

  3. Guillen-Monterrubio OM, Hartikainen J, Taskinen K, Saari KM (1997) Quantitative determination of aqueous flare and cells in healthy eyes. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 75:58–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Havener WH (1983) Corticosteroid therapy. In: Havener WH (ed) Ocular pharmacology, 5th edn. CV Mosby, St. Louis, pp 433–500

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hogan MJ, Kimura SJ, Thygeson P (1959) Signs and symptoms of uveitis. I. Anterior uveitis. Am J Ophthalmol 47(Part 2):155–170

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kristinsson JK, Fridriksdottir H, Thorisdottir S, Sigurdardottir AM, Stefansson E, Loftsson T (1996) Dexamethasone–cyclodextrin–polymer co-complexes in aqueous eye drops: aqueous humour pharmacocinetics in humans. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 37:1199–1203

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Loftsson T, Brewster E (1997) Pharmaceutical applications of cyclodextrins. 1. Drug solubilization and stabilization. J Pharm Sci 85:1017–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Loftsson T, Fridriksdottir H, Thorisdottir S, Stefansson E (1994) The effect of hydroxypropyl methycellulose on the release of dexamethasone from aqueous 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin formulation. Int J Pharm 104:181–184

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Loftsson T, Järvinen T (1999) Cyclodextrins in ophthalmic drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 36:59–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pedersen OÖ (1975) Electron microscopic studies on the blood–aqueous barrier of prostaglandin-treated rabbit eyes. II. Iris. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 53:699–709

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Saari KM, Aine E, Parviainen MT (1985) Determination of protein content in ocular fluids by high-performance gel filtration chromatography. In: O’Connor GR, Chandler JW (eds) Advances in immunology and immunopathology of the eye. Masson Publishing, New York, pp 258–262

    Google Scholar 

  12. Saari KM, Guillen-Monterrubio OM, Hartikainen J, Hämäläinen MM, Taskinen K (1997) Measurement of protein concentration of aqueous humour in vivo: correlation between laser flare measurements and chemical protein determination. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 75:63–66

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Saari KM, Jyrkkiö H, Seppä H, Loftsson J, Stefansson E (1998) Acute and chronic postoperative inflammatory reaction after cataract extraction and intraocular lens implantation. In: Ohno S, Aoki K, Usui M, Uchio E (eds) Uveitis today. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 99–102

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sawa M, Tsurimaki Y, Tsuru T, Shimizu H (1988) New quantitative method to determinate protein concentration and cell number in aqueous in vivo. Jpn J Ophthalmol 32:132–142

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Shah SM, Spalton DJ, Smith SE (1991) Measurement of aqueous cells and flare in normal eyes. Br J Ophthalmol 75:348–352

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Yalvac I, Airaksinen PJ, Tuulonen A (1997) Phacoemulsification with and without trabeculectomy in patients with glaucoma. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers 28:469–475

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Research Fund of Turku University Central Hospital, Turku, Finland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Turku, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, 20520, Turku, Finland

    K. Matti Saari & Laura Nelimarkka

  2. Department of Statistics, University of Turku, 20520, Turku, Finland

    Virpi Ahola

  3. Department of Pharmacy, University of Iceland, Hagi, Hofsvallagatan 53, P.O. Box 7210, 127, Reykjavik, Iceland

    Thorsteinn Loftsson

  4. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Iceland, National University Hospital, 101, Reykjavik, Iceland

    Einar Stefánsson

Authors
  1. K. Matti Saari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Nelimarkka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Virpi Ahola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thorsteinn Loftsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Einar Stefánsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Matti Saari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saari, K.M., Nelimarkka, L., Ahola, V. et al. Comparison of topical 0.7% dexamethasone–cyclodextrin with 0.1% dexamethasone sodium phosphate for postcataract inflammation. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmo 244, 620–626 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-005-0124-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-005-0124-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation