ISSN : 3023-7505
  • Home
  • About The Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Contact
Current Issue
Ahead Of Print
Archive
Search
Most Popular
Download Articles Read Articles
Automated Perimetry
Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors
Intra Ocular Lens Power Calculation and Optic Biometry...
Visual Field Defects in Glaucoma
Visual Field Defect and Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Defect in a Case of Optic Nerve Head Drusen...
Current Minimal Invasive Angle Procedures Without Implants for the Treatment of Glaucoma...
Intra Ocular Lens Power Calculation and Optic Biometry...
Automated Perimetry
Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors
Visual Field Defect and Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Defect in a Case of Optic Nerve Head Drusen...
PureSee Kesintisiz Yüksek Kalitede Görüş
TJ-CEO 2008 , Vol 3 , Num 4
Turkish Abstract Abstract PDF Similar Articles Mail to Author
Two Types of Topical Latanoprost Applications in Open Angle Glaucoma: Xalatan® and Xalease®
Volkan DAYANIR1, Yelda Gökçe BALCI2, Mete EYİGÖR3
1Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Göz Hastalıkları A.D., Aydın, Prof. Dr.
2Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Göz Hastalıkları A.D., Aydın, Uzm. Dr.
3Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mikrobiyoloji A.D., Aydın, Yard. Doç. Dr.
Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the effects of topical latanoprost (Xalatan®, Pfizer, Puurs, Belgium) application manually, and through a device (Xalease®, Pfizer, Taipei, Taiwan) on intraocular pressure (IOP), duration of use, bacterial contamination, and patient preference in glaucoma patients.
Materials and Methods: This study included 53 eyes of 27 open angle glaucoma patients who recieved latanoprost monotheraphy. Following initial IOP measurement, each patient was given a bottle of Xalatan® (Group 1), and informed to bring it back when the bottle was finished. When the patient brought in the bottle, the final IOP was measured, duration of use was noted, and the patient was instructed about the use of Xalease® (Group 2). The final IOP of Group 1 constituted initial IOP of Group 2. When the second bottle was brought in, final IOP was checked, and duration of use was noted. Empty bottles were cultured and patients were asked two questions about the preferred way of application.
Results: There were 9 male and 18 female open angle glaucoma patients with a mean age of 58±8 years. There was no statistically significant difference within (respectively, p=0.052, p=0.949) or between (respectively, p=0.052, p=0.949) Group 1 and Group 2 with regard to initial and final IOPs, and duration of use (p=0.722). Culturing of empty bottles did not reveal any bacteriological growth. 70% (19/27) of the patients found Xalease®, whereas 30% (8/27) found Xalatan® to be of easier use and preferable in the future.
Conclusion: While the device has no superiority over the bottle in terms of IOP control, bacterial contamination, and duration of use, most patients favored the device.
Keywords : Glaucoma, latanoprost, Xalatan®, Xalease®, compliance
PureSee Kesintisiz Yüksek Kalitede Görüş
Home
About The Journal
Editorial Board
Instructions for Authors
Contact