Comparison of Ciprofloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% with fortified Cephazolin-Gentamicin in treating bacterial corneal ulcer
|
Mahmoud Nejabat * , Mohommad Reza Razeghinejad , Abdolvahhab Alborzi |
|
|
Abstract: (58261 Views) |
Background: Bacterial corneal ulcer is a common ophthalmic problem. Still controversies are exist for the treatment of bacterial corneal ulcer, thus, the present study was carried out in Namazi hospital in Shiraz to determine the efficacy and side effects of ciprofloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% and compare this with fortified cephazolin-gentamicin. Materials and Methods: It was a clinical trial. Having the physical examination and patient’s history completed, two samples were obtained for culture and smear. Patients were randomly distributed in two groups. One received the standard protocol (Cephazolin 5% and gentamicin 9% ophthalmic solutions) and the other was given ciprofloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3%. Efficacy was evaluated according to the days of treatment and side effects were surveyed by eye burning and white deposit. Results: Of 45 cases, 6 were excluded due to the altered regimen. Of 39 studied cases, 20 received ciprofloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% and the remaining 19 were given standard regimen. Success rate was 90% and 89.5% for the ciprofloxacin and standard regimen, respectively (NS). Eye burning was reported 5% and 36.8%, respectively meanwhile, white deposits were reported in 36.8% of patients who have received standard regimen (P<0.02). Of cultured bacteria, one had shown intermediate resistance to ciprofloxacin, however, resistance was noted to cephalexin and gentamicin. Conclusion: Ciprofloxacin can be a suitable alternative for fortified cephazolin-gentamicin sine it has better outcome and less side effects. Further studies are highly recommended.
|
|
Keywords: Ciprofloxacin, Cephazolin, Gentamicin, Bacterial corneal ulcer |
|
Full-Text [PDF 1481 kb]
(2259 Downloads)
|
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
General Received: 2008/11/9 | Revised: 2008/11/9 | Published: 2002/04/15
|
|
|
|
|
Add your comments about this article |
|
|