Evidence Hub

Comparative study of the disinfection effects of three types of conjunctiva sac irrigations

Lin S, Li G, Huang H

Eye science, 2013

295 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: The antiseptic effectiveness of 5% anerdian III, 0.016% gentamicin, and 0.5% tobramycin solutions in pre-surgical irrigation of conjunctival sac were compared.

METHODS: A total of 295 cataract patients (302 eyes) who had undergone phacoemulsification aspiration combined with intraocular lens insertion (IOL) were recruited in this prospective study. Operative eyes were given 0.3% levofloxacin eye drops for 3 days and then were randomized into three treatment groups: anerdian (A), gentamicin (B) and tobramycin (C). The patients received conjunctival sac irrigation using the respective solutions at 10 minutes preoperatively. Conjunctival sac sampling was performed before and after irrigation and the samples were used for subsequent bacterial culture and swab tests. The positive culture rate was used as the main outcome.

RESULTS: The positive rates of bacterial culture before conjunctival sac irrigation were 17.31% (18 eyes) in group A, 13.86% (14 eyes) in group B and 17.3% (14 eyes) in group C. Post irrigation, the positive rates in the three groups decreased to 5.76% (6 eyes), 5.94% (6 eyes) and 7.22% (7 eyes), respectively. The positive rates among the three groups did not differ significantly. However, the positive rate in group A only significantly differed before and after the irrigation (P < 0.05). No toxic or allergic reactions were observed on the ocular surface of any patient after irrigation.

CONCLUSION: The antiseptic effects of the three types of con…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 295 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free