Scintigraphic Evaluation of Polymeric Formulations for Ophthalmic Use

  • C. G. Wilson
Part of the FIDIA Research Series book series (FIDIA, volume 11)


The appreciation of the behaviour of ophthalmic dosage forms in vivo has been limited by the lack of suitable quantitative methods. Tear sampling significantly alters the kinetics of the system because of the small volume of the tear film. The technique of gamma scintigraphy has superceded x-ray studies in the investigation of restriction of the nasolacrimal duct. It is a small step from this routine clinical application to apply the technique to the study of the precorneal behaviour of suitable markers incorporated into ophthalmic formulations. The method is associated with a low radiation dosimetry and can be safely used in man. This affords the opportunity to conduct comparative studies of the behaviour of polymeric formulations in man with established animal models such as the rabbit.


Polymeric Formulation Nasolacrimal Duct Small Unilamellar Vesicle Pinhole Collimator Gamma Scintigraphy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bangham A.D., Standish M.M. and Watkins J.C. (1965) J. Mol. Biol. 13: 238–252Google Scholar
  2. Bloomfield S.E., Migata T., Dunn M.W. et al. (1978) Arch. Ophthalmol 96: 885–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chria S.S., Patton T.F., Mehta A. and Robinson J.R. (1973) J. Pharm. Sci. 62: 1112–1121.Google Scholar
  4. Davies D.J.P., Jones D.E.P., Meakin B.P. and Norton D.A. (1977) Ophthalmol. Dig. 39: 13–26Google Scholar
  5. Edelhauser H.F. and Champeau E.J. (1984),International Tear Film Symposium Proceedings pp 47–53 (publ Lubbock:Texas)Google Scholar
  6. Fitzgerald P., Hadgraft J. and Wilson C.G. (1984). J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 36: 24P.Google Scholar
  7. Fitzgerald P. (1985). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  8. Fitzgerald P., Gilbert D., Hollingsbee D.A. and Wilson C. G. (1986). J. Pharm. Pharmacol (in press)Google Scholar
  9. Gurny R., Boye T. and Ibrahim H. (1985) J. Control. Release. 2: 353–61Google Scholar
  10. Hardy J.G. and Wilson C.G. (1981) Clin. Phys. Physiol. Meas. 2: 71–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hwang K.J., Mernain J. E., Beaumier P.C. and Luk K.S. (1982). Biochimica and Biophysica Acta 716: 101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mishima S., Gasset A. and Klyce S.D. (1966) Invest. Ophthalmol. 5: 264–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Schaeffer H. E. and Krohn D.L. (1982) Invest. Ophthalmol. 23: 220–7.Google Scholar
  14. Shell J.W. (1982) Surv. Ophthalmol. 26: 207–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stratford R.F., Yang D.C., Redell M.A. and Lee V.H.L. (1983) Int. J. Pharmaceut. 13: 263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wilson C.G., Olejnik O. and Hardy J.G. (1983) J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 35: 451–4.Google Scholar
  17. Wilson C.G., Hardy J. G., Frier M.and Davis S. S. eds.(1984)“Radionuclide Imaging in Formulation Research” (Croom Helm:London)Google Scholar
  18. Yakovlev A.A. and Lenkovich M.M. (1966) Vestn. Oftal. 79: 40–43Google Scholar
  19. Zaki, I., Fitzgerald P., Hardy J.G. and Wilson C. G. (1986) J. Pharm. Pharmac. 38: 463–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. G. Wilson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physiology and PharmacologyMedical School Queen’s Medical CentreNottinghamEngland

Personalised recommendations