ArticleContact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association2022
Exploring microwave irradiation as a method to disinfect contact lens cases.
Article in Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeBiofilm formation caused by infrequent contact lens case replacement and the ineffectiveness of multi-purpose solutions (MPS) on biofilm removal is associated with high rates of bacterial keratitis infections. This study demonstrated biofilm elimination from the contact lens case by microwave irradiation.
methodsStaphylococcus aureus biofilms indicative of 3-9 months of contact wear were cultured in contact lens cases and visualized with crystal violet (CV) staining. Biofilms in contact cases were then exposed to four treatment regimens: No treatment (n = 8), 45 s microwave irradiation (n = 8), tap water (n = 6), and MPS (n = 9). Bacterial survival was assessed by colony forming unit (CFU) assay using streak dilutions.
resultsVisualization of the biofilms through CV staining revealed that biofilms coalesce between ribs of the contact case. In 5/8 cases no CFU were cultivated from the case after treatment with microwave irradiation. In tap water and MPS the first dilution averaged 6 ± 2 and 31 ± 13 CFUs per plate, respectively, while microwave irradiation averaged < 1 CFU per plate. In Dilution 2, the average reduced to 0.7 ± 0.7 and 6 ± 5 CFUs per plate for tap water and MPS, respectively, while microwave irradiation had 0 CFUs in Dilution 2.
conclusionBiofilms that coalesce between the ribs of the contact case pose a threat because this area is difficult to thoroughly scrub and could act as a basis for infection through fouling of contact lenses. Of the four treatment regimens, microwave irradiation displayed the most consistent and highest rate of bacterial eradication. Tap water was less effective compared to microwave irradiation, and poses other harmful side effects, but greatly reduced CFU count compared to no treatment. MPS displayed the poorest bacterial eradication of the treatments. Thus, microwave irradiation is worth further investigation as a viable in-home disinfecting option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.