Cargando…

Pupil dilation using drops vs gel: a comparative study

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy in pupil dilation and degree of discomfort between topical instillation of mydriatic drops and gel. METHODS: The study included 60 patients with no previous ocular history of trauma and surgery. One eye was dilated with two drops (tropicamide 0.5% and phenylephrine 1...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moisseiev, E, Loberman, D, Zunz, E, Kesler, A, Loewenstein, A, Mandelblum, J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4469672/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25857606
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.47
_version_ 1782376645785550848
author Moisseiev, E
Loberman, D
Zunz, E
Kesler, A
Loewenstein, A
Mandelblum, J
author_facet Moisseiev, E
Loberman, D
Zunz, E
Kesler, A
Loewenstein, A
Mandelblum, J
author_sort Moisseiev, E
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy in pupil dilation and degree of discomfort between topical instillation of mydriatic drops and gel. METHODS: The study included 60 patients with no previous ocular history of trauma and surgery. One eye was dilated with two drops (tropicamide 0.5% and phenylephrine 10%), and the other with one drop of gel (tropicamide 0.5%+phenylephrine 5%). Pupil size was measured by a Colvard pupillometer at baseline and 5, 15, 30, and 45 min following instillation. Pain upon instillation was measured by visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: There was no difference in pupil size at baseline. Use of the gel achieved greater mydriasis than drops (P=0.01), and was also associated with lower pain scores (P=0.003). In diabetic patients, pupil size was smaller at baseline and following instillation of drops and gel. Use of the gel achieved an even greater degree of pupil dilation in this subset of patients than drops (P=0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Gel formulation achieved significantly greater pupil dilation than drops, despite a lower concentration of phenylephrine, and was also associated with significantly lower patient discomfort. This study is the first report of improved mydriatic efficacy in diabetic patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4469672
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44696722015-06-18 Pupil dilation using drops vs gel: a comparative study Moisseiev, E Loberman, D Zunz, E Kesler, A Loewenstein, A Mandelblum, J Eye (Lond) Clinical Study PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy in pupil dilation and degree of discomfort between topical instillation of mydriatic drops and gel. METHODS: The study included 60 patients with no previous ocular history of trauma and surgery. One eye was dilated with two drops (tropicamide 0.5% and phenylephrine 10%), and the other with one drop of gel (tropicamide 0.5%+phenylephrine 5%). Pupil size was measured by a Colvard pupillometer at baseline and 5, 15, 30, and 45 min following instillation. Pain upon instillation was measured by visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: There was no difference in pupil size at baseline. Use of the gel achieved greater mydriasis than drops (P=0.01), and was also associated with lower pain scores (P=0.003). In diabetic patients, pupil size was smaller at baseline and following instillation of drops and gel. Use of the gel achieved an even greater degree of pupil dilation in this subset of patients than drops (P=0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Gel formulation achieved significantly greater pupil dilation than drops, despite a lower concentration of phenylephrine, and was also associated with significantly lower patient discomfort. This study is the first report of improved mydriatic efficacy in diabetic patients. Nature Publishing Group 2015-06 2015-04-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4469672/ /pubmed/25857606 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.47 Text en Copyright © 2015 Royal College of Ophthalmologists http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Moisseiev, E
Loberman, D
Zunz, E
Kesler, A
Loewenstein, A
Mandelblum, J
Pupil dilation using drops vs gel: a comparative study
title Pupil dilation using drops vs gel: a comparative study
title_full Pupil dilation using drops vs gel: a comparative study
title_fullStr Pupil dilation using drops vs gel: a comparative study
title_full_unstemmed Pupil dilation using drops vs gel: a comparative study
title_short Pupil dilation using drops vs gel: a comparative study
title_sort pupil dilation using drops vs gel: a comparative study
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4469672/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25857606
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.47
work_keys_str_mv AT moisseieve pupildilationusingdropsvsgelacomparativestudy
AT lobermand pupildilationusingdropsvsgelacomparativestudy
AT zunze pupildilationusingdropsvsgelacomparativestudy
AT keslera pupildilationusingdropsvsgelacomparativestudy
AT loewensteina pupildilationusingdropsvsgelacomparativestudy
AT mandelblumj pupildilationusingdropsvsgelacomparativestudy