4.2 Article

Benzalkonium Chloride-Induced Corneal Epithelial Injury in Rabbit Reduced by Rebamipide

期刊

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jop.2021.0052

关键词

benzalkonium chloride (BAK); rebamipide ophthalmic solution; corneal epithelial injury; corneal resistance measurement device (CRD)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study showed that rebamipide ophthalmic solution effectively reduces corneal epithelial injury caused by BAK, as demonstrated by corneal resistance and fluorescein staining experiments.
Purpose: We assessed the effect of rebamipide ophthalmic solution on corneal epithelial injury due to benzalkonium chloride (BAK) by fluorescein (FL) staining and corneal resistance (CR).Methods: After determining the absence of corneal epithelial damage by FL and CR, rebamipide ophthalmic solution (50 mu L) was instilled five times, each interspaced by 5 min, into one eye of mature New Zealand white rabbits, and likewise physiological saline was instilled into the contralateral eye as the control. After 30 min, eyes were similarly treated with one of the following solutions: BAK solution 0.02%, latanoprost ophthalmic solution (0.02% BAK), or latanoprost ophthalmic solution without BAK. The presence of corneal epithelial damage was quantitated at 10, 30, and 60 min by CR after the last instillation. FL staining was also performed at 60 min after the last instillation.Results: CR ratios (%) at 60 min after the last instillation in rebamipide/BAK and rebamipide/latanoprost (0.02% BAK) groups were significantly increased by 18.3% and 25.6% compared with saline/BAK and saline/latanoprost (0.02% BAK) groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Findings by FL staining were consistent with those by CR; BAK and latanoprost with BAK groups were positive, and eyes with the most severe area and density of corneal epithelial damage (A2D2) were in the saline/BAK group.Conclusion: The rebamipide ophthalmic solution reduces the severity of corneal epithelial injury caused by BAK, an ophthalmic solution preservative.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据