Advertisement

International Ophthalmology

, Volume 39, Issue 10, pp 2149–2151 | Cite as

First experience with Oasis Collagen SOFT SHIELD® for epithelial defect after corneal cross-linking

  • Ivo GuberEmail author
  • Ciara Bergin
  • Shruti Malde
  • Josef Guber
  • Samer Hamada
  • Damian Lake
Letter to the Editor

Abstract

Background

To investigate response of dissolving collagen contact lenses as an alternative for bandage contact lenses, for the post-interventional care of epithelial defects after corneal cross-linking (CXL) treatment for keratoconus.

Patients and methods

Follow-up visits were performed at day 1, 4 and 1 month after the intervention. We reviewed notes for re-epithelialization, comfort/pain and any untoward effects of Collagen SOFT SHIELD®. Assessment included visual acuity (VA), refraction (SE); corneal haze, epithelial erosion and pain status were assessed subjectively on a 4-point scale, from 0 (none) to 3 (severe).

Results

Thirty consecutive CXL patients with collagen shield application after CXL were included. Mean age was 28 years (range from 16 to 51 years old). Pre-CXL VA was 0.7 logMAR IQR 0.4–1.0; post-CXL VA at day 4 and month 1 was 0.6 logMAR IQR 0.4–0.9. Post-operative mean SE was 5.5D ± 4.1D. In all patients, the Collagen SOFT SHIELD® was completely dissolved at the 4-day follow-up visit. In most cases, epithelial defect was closed at day 4, on average 0.8 ± 0.5 days post-intervention; all epithelial defects were closed by month 1. Haze was minimal (mean haze score 1.4 ± 0.7 at day 4 and 1.0 ± 0.6 at 1 month). No adverse effects such as infection were observed.

Conclusions

This study indicates that Oasis Collagen SOFT SHIELD® is valuable and safe alternative to standard bandage contact lens for the treatment of epithelial defects. This outcome may be of particular interest in patients where the contact lens removal is likely to be problematic.

Keywords

Collagen soft shield Corneal epithelial defect Bandage contact lens Corneal re-epithelialization Corneal collagen cross-linking 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Willoughby CE, Batterbury M, Kaye SB (2002) Collagen corneal shields. Surv Ophthalmol 47(2):174–182 (review) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhou S, Hunt KM, Grewal AS, Brothers KM, Dhaliwal DK, Shanks RMQ (2017) Release of moxifloxacin from corneal collagen shields. Eye Contact Lens 10:10.  https://doi.org/10.1097/icl.0000000000000421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zidan G, Rupenthal ID, Greene C, Seyfoddin A (2018) Medicated ocular bandages and corneal health: potential excipients and active pharmaceutical ingredients. Pharm Dev Technol 23(3):255–260 (review) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guber I, Guber J, Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA (2013) Visual recovery after corneal crosslinking for keratoconus: a 1-year follow-up study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 251(3):803–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sharma N, Maharana P, Singh G, Titiyal JS (2010) Pseudomonas keratitis after collagen crosslinking for keratoconus: case report and review of literature. J Cataract Refract Surg 36(3):517–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rama P, Di Matteo F, Matuska S, Paganoni G, Spinelli A (2009) Acanthamoeba keratitis with perforation after corneal crosslinking and bandage contact lens use. J Cataract Refract Surg 35(4):788–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queen Victoria Hospital, NHS Foundation TrustEast Grinstead, West SussexUK
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
  3. 3.Jules-Gonin Eye HospitalUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations