April 2011
Volume 52, Issue 14
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2011
Contact Lens Storage Case Hygiene Practice and Case Contamination
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Ajay Kumar Vijay
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia
  • Hua Zhu
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
  • Mark Willcox
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
  • Fiona Stapleton
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
  • Roya N. Borazjani
    R & D, Alcon Labs, Fort Worth, Texas
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Ajay Kumar Vijay, Alcon Research Ltd (F); Hua Zhu, Alcon Research Ltd (F); Mark Willcox, Alcon Research Ltd (F); Fiona Stapleton, Alcon Research Ltd (F); Roya N. Borazjani, Alcon Research Ltd (E)
  • Footnotes
    Support  Brien Holden Vision Institute, Alcon Research Ltd
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2011, Vol.52, 6480. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Ajay Kumar Vijay, Hua Zhu, Mark Willcox, Fiona Stapleton, Roya N. Borazjani; Contact Lens Storage Case Hygiene Practice and Case Contamination. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(14):6480.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : Persistent microbial contamination of contact lens (CL) storage cases is common and is associated with microbial keratitis and corneal infiltrates. This study investigated the ability of storage case care and cleaning regimens to remove robust microbial biofilms.

Methods: : Test storage cases were inoculated with 2mL of 106 CFU/mL of ocular isolates of either P.aeruginosa or S.aureus and incubated for 48 hours. Cases were subsequently treated with either a 10 second rinse (hot water or test multipurpose solution (MPS, containing polyhexamethyl biguanide and polyquad), soaking (MPS or 3% hydrogen peroxide), followed by air-drying for 6 hours or tissue wiping. The number of survivors were enumerated using standard techniques.

Results: : Challenge biofilms comprised 8.3±0.2 log CFU (P.aeruginosa) and 6.5±0.2 log CFU (S.aureus). Rinsing with MPS or hot water and air-drying cases had no significant effect on S.aureus biofilms and partially removed P.aeruginosa biofilms (3.2-6.8 log CFU survivors). Soaking in MPS for 4 hours caused no reduction of biofilm whereas hydrogen peroxide partially removed biofilms (6.1±0.7 log CFU survivors P.aeruginosa; 1.2±2.1 log CFU S.aureus). Rinsing or soaking cases with MPS, tissue wiping and air-drying showed the greatest reduction in biofilm (0.9±0.2 log CFU survivors P.aeruginosa; 3.4±1.2 log CFU S.aureus).

Conclusions: : Biofilms formed by the S.aureus isolate were more resistant to hygiene procedures than those of the P.aeruginosa isolate. Rinsing (with MPS or hot water) followed by 6 hours of air-drying is insufficient to remove heavy biofilm. Soaking in the test MPS followed by tissue wiping or a long drying period was effective for both strains.

Keywords: contact lens • pseudomonas • Staphylococcus 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×