Suppr超能文献

眼部烧伤的紧急处理:我们应选择哪种冲洗液?

Emergency treatment of eye burns: which rinsing solution should we choose?

作者信息

Rihawi S, Frentz M, Schrage N F

机构信息

Augenklinik Universitätsklinikum Aachen, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52070 Aachen, Germany.

出版信息

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006 Jul;244(7):845-54. doi: 10.1007/s00417-005-0034-3. Epub 2005 Dec 20.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In the treatment of eye burns few data on the comparative application of rinsing solutions exist. We present experiments in vitro and ex vivo on the pH changes that can be achieved in alkali eye burns with currently distributed and propagated rinsing fluids like water, saline solution, Cederroth Eye Wash Solution (including borate buffer), Diphoterine, Ringers lactate solution and phosphate buffer.

METHODS

Titration curves in beakers are compared with ex vivo experiments on isolated rabbit eyes. We exposed eyes to burns from filter paper soaked in 2 mol NaOH, continuously measuring the anterior chamber pH by means of a micro pH electrode placed near the endothelium. In each experiment--repeated five times--the corneal burn of 20 s in 2 mol NaOH was followed by a period of 15 min of rinsing under a defined flow of 66 ml/min.

RESULTS

We found highly significant differences in intracameral pH related to different types of rinsing solutions. The return of the intracameral pH to normal was not achieved by any of the rinsing fluids, but the best results were noted for of Cederroth Eye Wash Solution (Cederroth Industrial Products, Upplands Väasby, Sweden) and the Diphoterine- and Previn solutions (Prevor, Cologne, Germany). Water played an intermediate role whereas saline and phosphate buffer were not efficient at lowering intracameral pH after alkali burns.

CONCLUSION

In alkali burns we recommend efficient buffering solutions. The tested isotonic phosphate buffer (PBS) was not effective at buffering the intraocular pH. Water was found to be much less efficient than Previn, Diphoterine or Cederroth Eye Wash solution in balancing intraocular pH.

摘要

背景

在眼部烧伤治疗中,关于冲洗液比较应用的数据很少。我们展示了体外和离体实验,研究目前市面上销售和推广的冲洗液(如水、盐溶液、Cederroth洗眼液(含硼酸盐缓冲液)、Diphoterine、乳酸林格液和磷酸盐缓冲液)在碱烧伤眼部时所能实现的pH值变化。

方法

将烧杯中的滴定曲线与离体兔眼实验进行比较。我们用浸泡在2摩尔氢氧化钠中的滤纸烧伤眼睛,通过放置在内皮附近的微型pH电极连续测量前房pH值。在每个实验中(重复五次),在2摩尔氢氧化钠中进行20秒的角膜烧伤后,在66毫升/分钟的规定流速下冲洗15分钟。

结果

我们发现与不同类型冲洗液相关的前房内pH值存在高度显著差异。没有一种冲洗液能使前房内pH值恢复正常,但Cederroth洗眼液(瑞典乌普萨拉市Väasby的Cederroth工业产品公司)、Diphoterine和Previn溶液(德国科隆的Prevor公司)的效果最佳。水起到了中间作用,而盐溶液和磷酸盐缓冲液在碱烧伤后降低前房内pH值方面效果不佳。

结论

在碱烧伤中,我们推荐使用高效缓冲溶液。测试的等渗磷酸盐缓冲液(PBS)在缓冲眼内pH值方面无效。发现水在平衡眼内pH值方面比Previn、Diphoterine或Cederroth洗眼液效率低得多。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验