QUANTITY OF PROTEIN DEPOSITED ON HYDROGEL CONTACT-LENSES AND ITS RELATION TO VISIBLE PROTEIN DEPOSITS

被引：37

作者：

MYERS, RI

LARSEN, DW

TSAO, M

CASTELLANO, C

BECHERER, LD

FONTANA, F

GHORMLEY, NR

MEIER, G

机构：

[1] Center for Corneal and Contact Lens Research, School of Optometry and The Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri St Louis, St Louis, MO

[2] Ciba Vision Corporation, Atlanta

[3] Center for Corneal and Contact Lens Research, School of Optometry, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St Louis, MO

来源：

OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE | 1991年 / 68卷 / 10期

关键词：

CONTACT LENSES; HYDROGELS; SPOILATION; LENS DEPOSITS;

D O I：

10.1097/00006324-199110000-00003

中图分类号：

R77 [眼科学];

学科分类号：

100212 ;

摘要：

The purposes of this study were to determine if the quantity of protein deposited (QPD) upon hydrogel lenses was affected by enzymatic cleaning and to test the potential relation between QPD and visible protein deposition (VPD) and change. Seventy-four contact lens patients classified as "heavy depositors" wore new lenses for an average of 80 (SD = 32) days. Cleaning and disinfection solutions varied. One lens was cleaned weekly by a papain enzymatic treatment. The distribution of QPD measurements was bimodal and was related to the FDA material for nonionic, low water content lenses (FDA Materials Group no. 1). The mean deposition was 45-mu-g/cm2 (N = 112) compared with that of ionic, high water content lenses (FDA Materials Group no. 4), which was 1010-mu-g/cm2 (N = 30). VPD distributions were the same for the FDA Group no. 1 and no. 4 lenses. Enzymatic treatment did not significantly reduce QPD; however, enzymatic treatment did reduce VPD. Thus QPD and VPD are independent phenomena and possible reasons for this are given.

引用

页码：776 / 782

页数：7

共 29 条

[1]

Bowers R., Tighe B.J., Studies of the ocular compatibility of hydrogels. A review of the clinical manifestations of spoliation, Biomaterials, 8, pp. 83-88, (1987)

[2]

Lowther G.E., Effectiveness of an enzyme in removing deposits from hydrophilic lenses, Am J Optom Physiol Opt, 54, pp. 76-84, (1977)

[3]

Nilsson S.E., Lindh H., Hydrogel contact lens cleaning with or without multi-enzymes, Acta Ophthalmol (Kbh), 66, pp. 15-18, (1988)

[4]

Tripathi R.C., Tripathi B.J., Millard C.B., Physicochemical changes in contact lenses and their interactions with the cornea and tears: A review and personal observation, CLAO J, 14, pp. 23-32, (1988)

[5]

Doell G.B., Palombi D.L., Egan D.J., Huff J.W., Contact lens surface changes after exposure to surfactant and abrasive cleaning procedures, Am J Optom Physiol Opt, 63, pp. 399-402, (1986)

[6]

Wedler F.C., Analysis of biomaterials deposited on soft contact lenses, J Biomed Mater Res, 11, pp. 525-535, (1977)

[7]

Kurashige L.T., Katoaka J.E., Edrington T., Vehige J.G., Protein deposition on hydrogel contact lenses: A comparison study of enzymatic cleaners, ICLC, 14, pp. 150-159, (1987)

[8]

Hathaway R.A., Lowther G.E., Soft lens cleaners: Their effectiveness in removing deposits, J am Optom Assoc, 49, pp. 259-266, (1978)

[9]

Fowler S.A., Allansmith M.R., Removal of soft contact lens deposits with surfactant-polymeric bead cleaner, CLAO J, 10, pp. 229-231, (1984)

[10]

Zuccaro V.S., Manrigue J., Barnes-Hind seeks permanent soil resistance, Contact Lens Forum, 11, 12, pp. 38-39, (1986)

← 1 2 3 →