Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Optom Vis Sci. 2021 May 1;98(5):512-517. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001693.
The results of this study demonstrate that Smart Touch Technology packaging, which is designed to reduce and simplify contact lens handling before insertion, is effective in reducing the frequency of bacterial contamination of the back surface of contact lenses after short-term wear.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of lens packaging type, chelating agent, and finger contamination on microbial contamination on the back surface of worn soft contact lenses.
Twenty-five subjects completed each contralateral lens wear comparison in this randomized study: Smart Touch Technology versus conventional blister packaging for (1) silicone hydrogel lenses with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and (2) hydrogel lenses without EDTA in the packaging, and (3) silicone hydrogel lenses without EDTA versus hydrogel lenses with EDTA both in Smart Touch Technology packaging. Participants washed hands, underwent finger swabs, and inserted the lenses. After 45 minutes, lenses were removed aseptically and the posterior lens surfaces cultured.
Thirty-eight subjects (average age, 30.9 ± 12.5 years) participated in this study. Overall, the level of back surface contamination was low for both lens materials, ranging from 0 to 43 colony-forming unit (CFU)/lens for the silicone hydrogel and 0 to 17 CFU/lens for the hydrogel lenses. The proportion of lenses with zero back surface contamination ranged from 16 to 64% for silicone hydrogel lenses and 28 to 64% for hydrogel lenses. Contact lenses from conventional packaging containing EDTA had 3.38 times increased risk (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 11.11; P = .05) of contamination being present compared with lenses from Smart Touch packaging with EDTA. Contact lenses from conventional packaging without EDTA had 3.4 times increased risk (95% CI, 1.02 to 11.36; P = .05) of contamination being present compared with Smart Touch packaging without EDTA, and silicone hydrogel lenses had a 6.28 times increased risk (95% CI, 1.65 to 23.81; P = .007) of contamination being present compared with hydrogels. The median (interquartile range) number of bacteria isolated from fingers used to perform lens insertion after handwashing but before lens insertion was not significantly different between the silicone hydrogel and hydrogel lenses (63.7 [204.2] vs. 59 [84.5], P = .09). Finger contamination was not significantly associated with lens contamination in the presence or absence of EDTA.
Smart Touch Technology packaging was effective in reducing the proportion of contaminated lenses. Although silicone hydrogel lenses were more likely to be contaminated, the presence of EDTA ameliorated this effect. Finger contamination was not associated with lens contamination.
本研究结果表明，旨在减少和简化隐形眼镜插入前处理的 Smart Touch Technology 包装，可有效降低短期佩戴后隐形眼镜背面细菌污染的频率。
本研究旨在调查镜片包装类型、螯合剂和手指污染对佩戴后的软性隐形眼镜背面微生物污染的影响。
在这项随机研究中，二十五名参与者完成了每只对比眼的佩戴比较：Smart Touch Technology 包装的硅水凝胶隐形眼镜与传统泡罩包装的隐形眼镜，其中含有乙二胺四乙酸（EDTA）的硅水凝胶隐形眼镜与传统泡罩包装的隐形眼镜，以及不含 EDTA 的水凝胶隐形眼镜；以及 Smart Touch Technology 包装中不含 EDTA 的硅水凝胶隐形眼镜与含有 EDTA 的水凝胶隐形眼镜。参与者洗手、进行手指拭子检查并插入镜片。 45 分钟后，无菌取出镜片并对镜片背面进行培养。
三十八名（平均年龄 30.9 ± 12.5 岁）参与者参加了这项研究。总的来说，两种镜片材料的背面污染程度都很低，硅水凝胶镜片的污染程度范围为 0 至 43 菌落形成单位（CFU）/镜片，水凝胶镜片的污染程度范围为 0 至 17 CFU/镜片。硅水凝胶镜片的零背面污染比例范围为 16%至 64%，水凝胶镜片的零背面污染比例范围为 28%至 64%。与 Smart Touch 包装中的 EDTA 相比，含有 EDTA 的传统包装中的隐形眼镜有 3.38 倍的污染风险（95%置信区间[CI]，1.02 至 11.11；P =.05）。与 Smart Touch 包装中不含 EDTA 的镜片相比，含有 EDTA 的传统包装中不含 EDTA 的镜片的污染风险增加了 3.4 倍（95%CI，1.02 至 11.36；P =.05），硅水凝胶镜片的污染风险增加了 6.28 倍（95%CI，1.65 至 23.81；P =.007）。在洗手后但在插入镜片前，用于插入镜片的手指从中分离出的细菌中位数（四分位距）在手洗后，在硅水凝胶镜片和水凝胶镜片之间没有显著差异（63.7 [204.2] 与 59 [84.5]，P =.09）。手指污染与有无 EDTA 时的镜片污染均无显著相关性。
Smart Touch Technology 包装可有效降低污染镜片的比例。尽管硅水凝胶镜片更容易受到污染，但 EDTA 的存在减轻了这种影响。手指污染与镜片污染无关。
