A Multicenter Prospective Randomized Controlled Study of a New Corneal Wetting Agent During Ophthalmologic Surgery

INTRODUCTION: A multicenter prospective randomized controlled study was used to investigate the effect and safety of a new corneal wetting agent called the Corneal Surface Viscoelastic Protector (CsVisc, Success Bio-Tech Co., Ltd, China), on the corneal epithelium during ophthalmic surgery by comparison with the commercially available Cornea Protect (CP, Valeant Med Sp. zo. o. Leobendorf, Austria). METHODS: This multicenter prospective randomized controlled study comprised patients scheduled for cataract surgery and pars plana vitrectomy. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either a new corneal wetting agent (CsVisc) or Cornea Protect (CP, Valeant Med Sp. zo. o. Leobendorf, Austria). Optical clarity during surgery, application frequency, duration of effect, diffusion time of corneal wetting agents, fluorescein staining, intraocular pressure (IOP), tear-film break-up time (TBUT), and Schirmer I test (SIT) were assessed. Adverse events were noted on the designated patient case report forms. RESULTS: A total of 149 eyes (149 patients, mean age 62 years; range 25–80 years) were included in the study. There were 74 eyes in the control group and 75 eyes in the study group. In patients who underwent vitrectomy, the frequency of application was 1.62 ± 1.03 in the study group and 1.39 ± 0.66 in the control group, with no significant difference (P = 0.399), and the duration of effect was 19.16 ± 6.94 min in the study group and 19.06 ± 7.22 min in the control group, with no significant difference (P = 0.835). The optical clarity of the study group was not significantly different from that of the control group (P = 0.485). In patients who underwent cataract surgery, the frequency of application was 1.10 ± 0.38 in the study group and 1.07 ± 0.26 in the control group, and the difference was not significant (P = 0.950). The difference between the duration of effect in the study group (8.32 ± 2.50 min) and the control group (7.63 ± 2.52 min) was not significant (P = 0.310). The difference in optical clarity scores between the two groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.600). Among all patients in this study, the diffusion time of the corneal wetting agent was 14.97 ± 10.07 s in the control group and 11.23 ± 8.41 s in the study group, with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.008). The frequency of adverse events was 20.00% (15/75) in the study group and 14.86% (11/74) in the control group, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.409). There were no serious adverse events related to the test medical device or causing patients to withdraw from the study. CONCLUSIONS: The CsVisc is safe and effective in preventing intraoperative corneal epithelial damage due to corneal dryness and can be comparable to the CP. In addition, the CsVisc has a shorter diffusion time.