Aviso: para depositar documentos, por favor, inicia sesión e identifícate con tu cuenta de correo institucional de la UCM con el botón MI CUENTA UCM. No emplees la opción AUTENTICACIÓN CON CONTRASEÑA
 

Comparative Analysis of Carmellose 0.5% Versus Hyaluronate 0.15% in Dry Eye: A Flow Cytometric Study

dc.contributor.authorSánchez Tena, Miguel Ángel
dc.contributor.authorTorralbo Jiménez, Pilar
dc.contributor.authorGiron, Natalia
dc.contributor.authorDe la Heras, Beatriz
dc.contributor.authorHerrero Vanrell, María Del Rocío
dc.contributor.authorArriola Villalobos, Pedro
dc.contributor.authorDíaz Valle, David
dc.contributor.authorÁlvarez Barrientos, Alberto
dc.contributor.authorBenítez Del Castillo Sánchez, José Manuel
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-23T09:39:19Z
dc.date.available2024-01-23T09:39:19Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To compare the effects of Viscofresh 0.5% (carmellose sodium 0. 5%) versus Lubristil (sodium hyaluronate 0.15%) in dry eye syndrome and to study the influence of these two treatments on the expression of various inflammatory markers by flow cytometry in impression cytology specimens. Methods: In this randomized, masked-observer, parallel group, single-center study, 15 patients with dry eye syndrome were randomized to sodium carmellose 0.5% or sodium hyaluronate 0.15% 1-month treatment after a 1-week washout period. Corneal staining with flurescein, breakup time, Schirmer 1 test with anesthesia (Jones test), and tear clearance were assessed. Besides, conjunctival impression cytology was performed to investigate inflammatory markers (CD3, CD11b, and HLA-DR) using flow cytometry. Results: Carmellose group shows statistical improvement compared with the hyaluronate group in breakup time, corneal staining, and HLA-DR. The two other inflammatory markers had also a tendency for a decreased expression in both groups, with no statistical significance. There were neither visual acuity loss nor other complications related to treatment. Conclusion: Both artificial tears improve dry eye signs and symptoms and inflammatory markers expression, with significant better results in carmellose group.
dc.description.departmentDepto. de Optometría y Visión
dc.description.facultyFac. de Óptica y Optometría
dc.description.refereedTRUE
dc.description.statuspub
dc.identifier.citationSanchez, M. A., Torralbo-Jimenez, P., Giron, N., de la Heras, B., Herrero Vanrell, R., Arriola-Villalobos, P., Diaz-Valle, D., Alvarez-Barrientos, A., & Benitez-Del-Castillo, J. M. (2010). Comparative analysis of carmellose 0.5% versus hyaluronate 0.15% in dry eye: a flow cytometric study. Cornea, 29(2), 167–171
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181b11648
dc.identifier.issn0277-3740
dc.identifier.officialurlhttps://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181b11648
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/94626
dc.issue.number2
dc.journal.titleCornea
dc.language.isoeng
dc.page.final171
dc.page.initial167
dc.page.total5
dc.rights.accessRightsrestricted access
dc.subject.cdu61
dc.subject.keywordFlow cytometric
dc.subject.keywordHyaluronate
dc.subject.keywordCarmellose
dc.subject.keywordImpression cytology
dc.subject.keywordInflammatory markers
dc.subject.knowledgeCiencias de la Salud
dc.subject.ucmCiencias Biomédicas
dc.subject.unesco32 Ciencias Médicas
dc.titleComparative Analysis of Carmellose 0.5% Versus Hyaluronate 0.15% in Dry Eye: A Flow Cytometric Studyen
dc.typejournal article
dc.type.hasVersionVoR
dc.volume.number29
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication1bbcfafa-1b33-4213-9a8d-2a1c633e8e85
relation.isAuthorOfPublicatione19672b5-d6f7-400a-b591-b903bc396955
relation.isAuthorOfPublication302adf1a-3cda-44c0-a3bd-ef3a9418d76d
relation.isAuthorOfPublication3e2b98e5-5c02-400b-8823-90887624c010
relation.isAuthorOfPublication1c7f939b-e6e5-45b0-aa9f-9892cb6e4378
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery1bbcfafa-1b33-4213-9a8d-2a1c633e8e85

Download

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Comparative_Analysis.pdf
Size:
178.22 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format