This web site is no longer actively maintained. Please visit http://www.contactlensupdate.com for up to date information.
Search
Powered by Google
Home
This Month
Editorial
Ocular Surface Characteristics of the Asian Eye
>
more
Meeting Synopsis
Academy 2010
>
more
Posters
pective Analysis of Risk Factors Associated With Contact Lens Induced Inflammatory Events During Continuous Wear
>
more
Feature Review
Adequate tear mixing under a soft contact lens may play an important role in minimizing certain > more
Tell a friend
> Home
> About Us
> Affiliates
> Contact Us
> Disclaimer
> Site Map

 




The Silicone Hydrogels website is partially supported through an educational grant from CIBA VISION

 
Posters | Archive
March 2006

 

Efficacy of Multi-Purpose Contact Lens Solutions on Passive Lysozyme Removal from Silicone Hydrogel and Conventional Hydrogel Contact Lenses

F. Zhang BSc, M. Glasier MSc, H. Sheardown PhD 2, L. Corstorphine 2, L. Jones PhD FAAO1
1CCLR, School of Optometry University of Waterloo Canada, 2Dept of Chem Eng McMaster University Canada

 

Purpose: To evaluate the ability of 6 “no-rub” multipurpose solutions to passively remove lysozyme from silicone hydrogel (SH) and conventional hydrogel (CH) contact lens materials.

Methods: 4 SH materials (balafilcon, galyfilcon, lotrafilcon A and lotrafilcon B) and 4 CH materials (polymacon, omafilcon, alphafilcon and etafilcon) were soaked in 125I-radiolabeled lysozyme. Following incubation, lenses were rinsed in PBS before soaking statically for 8 hours in lens cases containing 3ml of each care regimen: Alcon OptiFree® Express® (OFX), AMO Complete® Moisture Plus™ (COM), B&L ReNu® MoistureLoc™ (RML), B&L ReNu MultiPlus® (RMP), CIBA Aquify™ (AQ) and CIBA ClearCare® (CC). Following soaking, lens materials and regimens were measured for gamma radioactivity.

Results: Efficacy figures differed depending on the material-system combination. Etafilcon exhibited the greatest variation between care regimens, with OFX removing the most lysozyme (p<0.01), with an efficacy of 25% and AQ the lowest efficacy (5%). For the other CH materials, no significant difference was found between care regimens (p=NS): polymacon 35%, omafilcon 40% and alphafilcon 55% efficacy with all regimens. Cleaning efficacy with SH materials did not differ markedly between care regimens (p=NS), but did vary between SH materials: most materials had 5-20% efficacy, except galyfilcon, which had 30-50% efficacy (p<0.01). 

Conclusions:  Using a radiolabelled lysozyme technique, we were able to directly measure the amount of lysozyme remaining on lens materials after exposure to a variety of care regimens. For CH materials, etafilicon appears to be most influenced by care regimen composition. For SH materials, galyfilcon appears to be most easily cleaned of deposited lysozyme, possibly due to a more hydrophilic lens surface, resulting in reduced levels of denatured protein.

Download PDF of Poster:
Download - 86 KB
You will need Version 4 or later of Adobe Acrobat Reader to view some documents on this site. You can get the latest version from the Adobe Home site. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
All rights reserved, copyright 2002 - 2007 siliconehydrogels.org