No abstract

Purpose To compare the efficacy and safety of two carbomer 940 eye gels in the treatment of dry eyes: Lacrinorm (also called GelTears), a recently introduced eye gel, and Visco tears (also called Vidisic or Lacrigel), used as a reference gel. The main difference between the two gels is in the preservative, respectively benzalkonium chloride and cetrimide. There has been an increasing demand for the treatment of dry eyes, probably influenced by the higher proportion of elderly people in the population and to a lesser extent by environmental factors and the side effects of certain systemic medicines. 1 Artificial tears provide the main form of symptomatic treatment. Early saline solutions required frequent instillation, but current formulations provide an increased contact time on the ocular surface. MethodsPolyacrylic acid can be formulated at high viscosity for the topical treatment of dry eye? This gel is well tolerated and has lubricating properties, with an extended ocular surface residence time? Its non-Newtonian properties, which cause it to 'shear-thin' during the blink or saccade, minimise the symptoms of viscous drag that would otherwise occur.4-6 Polyacrylic acids of differing molecular weights are available. The most widely used is carbomer 940, whose efficacy and good tolerance in the treatment of dry eyes has been established?-ll Viscotears (marketed as Viscotears in Switzerland and the United Kingdom, as Vidisic in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, and as Lacrigel in France) is a carbomer 940 eye gel used in the treatment of dry eye. In a study by Brodwall et al.12 it was shown to be as safe as, better tolerated and more effective than polyvinylalcohol 1.4%. Lacrinorm (code number 221-A; Laboratoire Chauvin, marketed at GelTears in the United Kingdom) is a new carbomer 940 gel product that has recently been introduced in France, Belgium and Switzerland.The difference between Lacrinorm and Viscotears is the preservative, respectively benzalkonium chloride and cetrimide. They are both ionic ally charged, surfactant quaternary ammonium compounds. The ocular toxicity of benzalkonium chloride has been extensively AJ Bron

Both anti-inflammatory eyedrops were effective in reducing subclinical conjunctival inflammation before filtering surgery. Regarding superficial punctate keratitis, the corneal tolerance of preservative-free indomethacin 0.1% eyedrops seemed to be better than that of preserved fluorometholone eyedrops.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of topical 0.1% indomethacin with 0.1% dexamethasone after cataract surgery. Methods: 145 patients (indo = 71, dexa = 74) were enrolled in a randomised, double-masked study and received one drop 4 times a day of indomethacin or dexamethasone for 1 month. Results: Proteinic flare and cellular Tyndall decreased with time in both groups, with a difference in favour of indomethacin for cellular Tyndall on day 30 (p = 0.046). Conjunctival hyperaemia was less pronounced in the dexamethasone group on day 30 (p = 0.03). Tolerance of both drugs was good. Conclusion: 0.1% Indomethacin solution appears to be as safe and efficient as 0.1% dexamethasone eyedrops in the management of post-operative inflammation and could be a good alternative to the use of steroids.

No abstract