Corneal staining and cell shedding during the development of solution-induced corneal staining.

PURPOSE: This non-dispensing cross-over study was conducted to determine if lenses presoaked in Opti-Free RepleniSH (OFR) or ReNu MultiPlus (RMP) cause solution-induced corneal staining (SICS) and subsequent cell sloughing before the typical 2 h in vivo examination point. METHODS.: Study lenses (PureVision) were worn bilaterally by 13 participants for periods of 15, 30, 60, and 120 min using two different contralateral care regimen pairings. The lens worn on the test eye was soaked overnight in either OFR or RMP and the control eye in Clear Care (CC). After lens removal, corneal staining was rated on a scale of 0 (negligible) to 100 (severe) for four peripheral quadrants and the central region, and the differential global staining score was calculated by subtracting baseline staining scores. Following the staining assessment, corneal cells were collected from the ocular surface using a non-contact irrigation system to determine ocular cell shedding rates. RESULTS: Differential global staining score with OFR was greater than CC with the differences being statistically significant at 30 and 60 min (p < 0.01). Maximum staining with RMP was significantly greater than OFR and peaked after 60 and 120 min of lens wear (p < 0.01). On average, 710 ± 470 ocular cells were collected after lens wear, with similar shedding seen independent of solution or lens wear duration (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: SICS occurred earlier but to a significantly lower degree when PureVision lenses were presoaked in OFR compared with RMP, while lenses presoaked in CC did not cause SICS. Ocular surface cell shedding after lens removal was not impacted by lens wear durations of ≤2 h.

Non-invasive collection and examination of human corneal epithelial cells.

PURPOSE: To report the development of a new apparatus for non-invasive collection of human corneal epithelial cells. METHODS: Previous methods of non-invasive, irrigative corneal cell collection resulted in low cell yields limiting potential analysis. A new ocular surface cell collection apparatus (OSCCA) was designed to collect more epithelial cells from direct irrigation of the corneal surface to allow for clinical comparisons. Forty-five samples were obtained (unilateral or bilateral over seven visits) from five human participants. Cell yield, size, phenotype, and corneal staining (prior and post eye wash) were examined. RESULTS: On average 364 ± 230 epithelial cells were collected from the cornea per eye. Epithelial cell sizes ranged from 8.21 to 51.69 µm in diameter, and 67.30 to 2098.85 µm area. The proportion of corneal specific cells collected per sample was 75 ± 14% as determined by positive K3 expression with AE5. On average, 77 ± 0.2% of epithelial cells harvested were nucleated, the remainder were non-nucleated ghost cells. Corneal staining was reduced in the OSCCA-washed vs. contralateral non-washed eyes (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The OSCCA allows collection of human corneal epithelial cells with significantly higher yields, and greater specificity than previously reported. Reduced corneal staining observed post eye-wash demonstrated the safety of the technique, and its ability to remove cells directly from the corneal surface. The OSCCA could provide an objective non-invasive method of investigating pathological changes, effects of topical therapeutics, and impact of contact lenses and care-solutions of the cells of the ocular surface.

Sensitivity and reliability of objective image analysis compared to subjective grading of bulbar hyperaemia.

AIMS: To establish the sensitivity and reliability of objective image analysis in direct comparison with subjective grading of bulbar hyperaemia. METHODS: Images of the same eyes were captured with a range of bulbar hyperaemia caused by vasodilation. The progression was recorded and 45 images extracted. The images were objectively analysed on 14 occasions using previously validated edge-detection and colour-extraction techniques. They were also graded by 14 eye-care practitioners (ECPs) and 14 non-clinicians (NCLs) using the Efron scale. Six ECPs repeated the grading on three separate occasions RESULTS: Subjective grading was only able to differentiate images with differences in grade of 0.70-1.03 Efron units (sensitivity of 0.30-0.53), compared to 0.02-0.09 Efron units with objective techniques (sensitivity of 0.94-0.99). Significant differences were found between ECPs and individual repeats were also inconsistent (p<0.001). Objective analysis was 16x more reliable than subjective analysis. The NCLs used wider ranges of the scale but were more variable than ECPs, implying that training may have an effect on grading. CONCLUSIONS: Objective analysis may offer a new gold standard in anterior ocular examination, and should be developed further as a clinical research tool to allow more highly powered analysis, and to enhance the clinical monitoring of anterior eye disease.