Peter A Simmons PhD (FAAO), William H Ridder III PhD (OD, FAAO), Timothy B Edrington MS (OD, FAAO), Sharon Ho (OD), Kuen-Chine Lau (OD)
{"title":"Passive protein removal by two multipurpose lens solutions: comparison of effects on in vitro deposited and patient-worn hydrogel contact lenses","authors":"Peter A Simmons PhD (FAAO), William H Ridder III PhD (OD, FAAO), Timothy B Edrington MS (OD, FAAO), Sharon Ho (OD), Kuen-Chine Lau (OD)","doi":"10.1016/S0892-8967(99)00020-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Many contact lens wearers do not perform sufficient surfactant cleaning to remove deposited protein from their lenses. In this study, the “passive” protein removal performance during soaking/disinfection of two multipurpose solutions was investigated. Both artificially deposited and patient-worn etafilcon hydrogel lenses (Surevue, Vistakon, FDA group 4) were examined. Whole lenses or lens quarters were soaked in ReNu MultiPlus (Bausch & Lomb) or Complete Comfort Plus (Allergan). After soaking for 2–24 hours, lenses were removed and solutions assayed for desorbed </span>lysozyme<span> by spectrophotometry. Both multipurpose solutions performed passive protein removal during soaking. Complete removed more than ReNu (means of 211.5 vs 125.3 μg/lens from patient-worn lenses, respectively, after 7 hours). Protein assay of lens pieces after soaking indicated low (<60 μg/lens) amounts of superficial protein remaining in both solution groups. The removal represents 10–50% of the total protein load on the lens and may have an impact on the overall clinical performance of these products.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":80286,"journal":{"name":"International contact lens clinic (New York, N.Y.)","volume":"26 2","pages":"Pages 33-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0892-8967(99)00020-6","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International contact lens clinic (New York, N.Y.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892896799000206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12
Abstract
Many contact lens wearers do not perform sufficient surfactant cleaning to remove deposited protein from their lenses. In this study, the “passive” protein removal performance during soaking/disinfection of two multipurpose solutions was investigated. Both artificially deposited and patient-worn etafilcon hydrogel lenses (Surevue, Vistakon, FDA group 4) were examined. Whole lenses or lens quarters were soaked in ReNu MultiPlus (Bausch & Lomb) or Complete Comfort Plus (Allergan). After soaking for 2–24 hours, lenses were removed and solutions assayed for desorbed lysozyme by spectrophotometry. Both multipurpose solutions performed passive protein removal during soaking. Complete removed more than ReNu (means of 211.5 vs 125.3 μg/lens from patient-worn lenses, respectively, after 7 hours). Protein assay of lens pieces after soaking indicated low (<60 μg/lens) amounts of superficial protein remaining in both solution groups. The removal represents 10–50% of the total protein load on the lens and may have an impact on the overall clinical performance of these products.