December 2002
Volume 43, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   December 2002
Evaluating Microkeratome Cleaning Soaps
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • HP Sandoval
    Ophthalmology Magill Research Center-Storm Eye Institute-MUSC Charleston SC
  • MP Holzer
    Ophthalmology Magill Research Center-Storm Eye Institute-MUSC Charleston SC
  • CE Crosson
    Ophthalmology Magill Research Center-Storm Eye Institute-MUSC Charleston SC
  • DT Vroman
    Ophthalmology Magill Research Center-Storm Eye Institute-MUSC Charleston SC
  • L Werner
    Ophthalmology Magill Research Center-Storm Eye Institute-MUSC Charleston SC
  • DJ Apple
    Ophthalmology Magill Research Center-Storm Eye Institute-MUSC Charleston SC
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   H.P. Sandoval, None; M.P. Holzer, None; C.E. Crosson, None; D.T. Vroman, None; L. Werner, None; D.J. Apple, None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science December 2002, Vol.43, 2086. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      HP Sandoval, MP Holzer, CE Crosson, DT Vroman, L Werner, DJ Apple; Evaluating Microkeratome Cleaning Soaps . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2002;43(13):2086.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: The aim of this study was to look for the presence of soap residue on surgical instruments after washing them following a standardized regimen. Method: Light absorbed wavelength was determined for each of the following soaps: Endozime®, Enzol®/Cidezyme® Enzymatic Detergent, Klenzyme®, Palmolive® Ultra Original Dishwashing liquid and UniversalTM Concentrated Surgical Instrument Cleaner and Lubricant using UV spectroscopy. Once the wavelength was determined, a standard curve of absorbance was plotted using different dilutions for each soap. Using a stainless steel and a titanium instrument, a manual and an automated standardized microkeratome cleaning protocols were followed. Distilled water at different temperatures (25ºC and 40ºC) was used to rinse the instruments. The dilution ratio was 1:125 for all the soaps except for the Palmolive® Ultra (1:50). The absorbance of the cleaning solution, rinse water at 2 and 3 minutes as well as at 24 hours after soaking were measured for each soap, then compared and analyzed. Results: The mean absorbance for the undiluted enzymatic cleaners was 1.6177 (Range 0.4863 to 3.115), 0.9910 for the Palmolive® Ultra and 1.7548 for the UniversalTM. The absorbance decreases when diluted in the cleaning solution to 0.0495 (Range 0.0066 - 0.1248), 0.9910 and 1.7548 respectively. After rinse 1, as well as after rinse 2 and 24 hours the absorbance value decreases in different proportions depending on the type of soap, instrument material and water temperature. Conclusion: Changes in the light absorbance were detected. Non-enzymatic cleaners rinsed easier than the enzymatic ones. It has been reported that soap residue could cause inflammation (e.g. diffuse lamellar keratitis) after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). The soap composition, instrument material and the influence of water temperature are important factors.

Keywords: 548 refractive surgery: LASIK • 544 refractive surgery 
×
×

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.

×