CORNEAL ABRASION

Signs and Symptoms

Corneal abrasion without fluorescein.

Corneal abrasion is one of the common clinical entities that present to the optometric practice. Patients usually present with some or all of the following: acute pain, photophobia, lacrimation, bleph-arospasm, foreign-body sensation, blurry vision and a history of contact lens wear or being struck in the eye.1­11 Biomicroscopy of the injured area often reveals diffuse corneal edema and epithelial disruption. In severe cases, when edema is excessive, folds in Descemet's membrane may be visible. Cobalt blue light inspection, following the instillation of sodium fluorescein dye, will illuminate the denuded epithelium. The newly created wound appears as a bright green area compared to the rest of the cornea because the dye accumulates in the divot, adding density.3,5,10

Pathophysiology

The cornea has five distinct layers. Below the tears lies the corneal epithelium. The corneal epithelium is actually composed of three tissues: the stratified surface epithelium, the wing cell layer, containing the corneal nerves and the mitotically active basement membrane. Below the epithelium is the Bowman's membrane (a structure designed to prevent penetrating injuries), 250 lamellar sheets of stroma, Descemet's membrane, and finally the endothelium.

There are two categories of corneal abrasion; superficial, not involving Bowman's membrane and deep, penetrating Bowman's membrane, but not rupturing Descemet's membrane. Abrasions may result from foreign bodies, contact lenses, chemicals, fingernails, hair brushes, tree branches, dust and the like.

The cornea has remarkable healing properties. The epithelium adjacent to any insult expands in size to fill in the defect, usually within 24 to 48 hours.5 Lesions that are purely epithelial often heal quickly and completely without scarring. Lesions that extend below Bowman's membrane possess an increased risk for leaving a permanent opacity.5 Recent data suggests that the integrity of the basement membrane following the injury is a deciding factor in determining the regenerative character of the corneal repair.7

For years contact lenses have remained at the top of the list of consumer goods known to perpetrate ocular injuries. Further, ulceration following contact lens-induced corneal abrasion has been recognized and demonstrated as a secondary phenomenon to suspect compliance, care and lens cleanliness.8 In one study, ulcers were found only in corneas that were scratched with contact lenses colonized by viable S. aureus.8 Bacteriologic examination of lenses at the time of the event demonstrated the association.8

Management

Corneal abrasion with fluorescein staining.

Treatment for corneal abrasion begins with history. The time, place and activity surrounding the injury should be recorded for both medical and legal purposes. Visual acuity (VA) should be recorded before any procedures or drops are given, if possible. If the blepharo-spasm is sufficiently intense to preclude an acuity measurement, one drop of topical anesthetic from a recently open bottle can be administered. The VA should be measured immediately thereafter. The eye examination should proceed in a logical fashion from external adenexa to funduscopic examination. The eyelids should be everted and fornicies scrutinized to rule out the presence of foreign material. Fluorescein dye (without anesthetic) should be instilled to identify the corneal defects. The Seidel test (painting of the wound with dye observing for aqueous leakage) is used to uncover full-thickness injuries. The abrasion should be documented for size, shape, location and depth. Any anterior chamber reaction should be observed and noted as well. A dilated examination should be completed to rule out posterior effects from the trauma.

Medical treatment is initiated by using adequate cycloplegia (the potency of which should be determined on a case-by-case basis) and topical antibiotics such as Polytrim (polymyxn B and trimethoprim, Allergan), gentamicin or Tobrex (tobramicin, Alcon) or a fluoroquinolone (Vigamox, Zymar). Bed rest, inactivity and over-the-counter analgesics can be used to quiet acute pain. In cases where pain is severe, topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications (Voltaren or Acular, qid) or a thin, low water content bandage contact lens can be prescribed.1­6, 9, 10, 11

Pressure patching is no longer considered standard-of-care.1,2,4­6,10 Researchers examined patients with corneal abrasion: 17 with an eye patch and 18 with no eye patch. There was no significant difference in percent healing between the two groups, even when adjusted for age and initial abrasion size. Consistent with the data of others, pressure patching for corneal abrasions provides no benefit.10 Patching must always be avoided in patients who wear contact lenses due to the threat of microbial keratitis. Patients should be reevaluated every 24 hours until the abrasion
is reepithelialized.1­5

Clinical Pearls

  • To prevent recurrent erosion and reduce corneal edema, a hypertonic solution or ointment may be prescribed along with the other medications or after reepithelialization has occurred.5
  • In cases where excess epithelium impairs regrowth, a cotton-tipped applicator saturated with anesthetic may be used to debride loose tissue.5
  • When significant secondary uveitis is present, topical steroids may be required.
  • Worsening subepithelial infiltration may be a sign of infection. Lesions such as these should be considered vision threatening, warranting immediate treatment with fluoroquinolone antibiotic drops and consideration for culture.3

OVERVIEW OF NEW DRY EYE PRODUCTS

FOR MANY YEARS, there were only two options for managing dry eye syndrome: either put more moisture into the eye, or prevent the moisture already present from evaporating too quickly. Ophthalmic lubricating solutions, more commonly known as artificial tears, have remained the mainstay of dry eye therapy since their introduction in the 1940s.1 Freeman introduced the first silicone punctal plug in 1975,2 and other devices to prevent surface evaporation (e.g. Moist Eye moisture panels from EagleVision) have joined the ranks over the years, but these modalities have never been able to supplant artificial tear therapy from its #1 position.

A cursory review of an online health product service (www.drugstore.com) reveals over 50 distinct items when the term "artificial tears" is entered in the search engine! With so many products to choose from, it can be frustrating and intimidating for both patients and practitioners to know which option to select. The following is a review of some of the more recent products introduced for therapy of dry eye syndrome.

Trends in Artificial Tears

Despite their popularity and success, two significant difficulties still exist with artificial tears. The biggest issue is duration of action; patients frequently report only fleeting relief (on the order of five to 10 minutes) after instillation of many tear supplements. Also of concern is the addition of preservatives in many artificial tears, which can be a significant source of toxicity, particularly when these preparations are used frequently. Therefore, manufacturers have begun producing thicker, more viscous agents that increase corneal contact time without blurring vision. Examples of such products include Refresh Liquigel (Allergan), GenTeal Gel (Novartis), TheraTears Liquid Gel (Advanced Vision Research), and Systane (Alcon). Also, manufacturers have introduced several preservative-free solutions and "disappearing preservatives" to address the issue of toxicity. Virtually every line of dry eye products includes a preservative-free version (e.g., Tears Naturale PF, Hypotears PF, etc.), but only three product lines contain preservatives that break down soon after instillation. These include: GenTeal (Novartis, preserved with GenAqua, or sodium perborate), Tears Again (Cynacon/Ocusoft, preserved with Dissipate), and Refresh Tears (Allergan, preserved with Purite).

Nature's Tears

In mid-2002, a small company based in Oregon launched a unique product that has captured the interest of many exhibit hall attendees. Nature's Tears (Bio-Logic Aqua Technologies) is described by the manufacturer as an all natural moisturizing mist for the eyes consisting simply of tissue culture grade water with no preservatives or propellants. Rather than being instilled as a drop, Nature's Tears is sprayed toward the eyes from a distance of 12 to 18 inches. The premise? Artificial tears flood the ocular surface, washing away the lipid and mucin layers and depleting normal enzymes, claims the manufacturer. However, Nature's Tears mist allows for replenishing of the aqueous component without disturbing the other tear layers. This is an intriguing theory, and the product possesses a significant novelty factor. However, there is a lack of significant prospective studies demonstrating that this product is any more effective than other artificial tear supplements.

Endura

In the summer of 1999, the FDA Ophthalmic Drugs Subcommittee advisory panel unanimously recommended not to approve Allergan's formulation of topical cyclosporine for the treatment of keratoconjunctivitis sicca. One of the reasons cited was that the solution vehicle showed very similar efficacy to the drug itself, and hence there was no significant difference between the controls and the study group. Undaunted, Allergan decided to manufacture this unique vehicle, an emulsion of castor oil and lubricants in an aqueous solution, and market it directly to the public as an over-the-counter product. In the fall of 2002, Refresh Endura was launched.

According to Allergan, Endura is the first lubricant eye drop for dry eye that treats all three layers of the tear film. It is preservative-free and packaged in single-use, disposable vials. Controlled clinical trials with Endura showed enhanced fluorescein tear break-up time, as well as diminished symptoms of dryness and irritation in patients using the solution two to four times daily over 90 days. Clinical practice has shown it to be an excellent and well-tolerated solution, particularly suited for patients with lipid deficiencies secondary to meibomian gland dysfunction.

Systane

In early 2003, Alcon introduced a unique artificial tear product. Systane, which utilizes the demulcent technology of hydroxypropyl (HP) guar, increases in viscosity after contacting the ocular surface. This change is based on pH value. Systane is a liquid in the bottle at a pH of 7.0, but when placed in the eye (which has a pH of ~7.4), a chemical reaction occurs. HP guar binds to the ocular surface and simultaneously crosslinks with borate ions in the solution, forming a network with a gel-like consistency. The result is a more viscous ocular lubricant that, according to Alcon, provides extended relief of dry eye symptoms and generates a protective coating on the ocular surface. In theory, this coating serves as a temporary corneal bandage, allowing the epithelial cells to heal and reestablish healthy microvilli and a normal glycocalyx.

In a randomized, controlled clinical trial, dry eye patients receiving Systane four times daily for six weeks showed a statistically significant reduction in surface staining, dryness and foreign-body sensation, as well as increased tear break up time.3,4 Mild blurring for 30 seconds after instillation was the most significant adverse effect. Personal experience with Systane has shown it to be an outstanding choice for patients with moderate to severe dry eye who are not ameliorated with normal viscosity tear solutions. It is also excellent for managing minor corneal trauma or exposure keratopathy.

Restasis

In December 2002, the FDA approved Restasis (0.05% cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion) for the treatment of keratoconjunctivitis sicca, making it the first commercially available pharmaceutical therapeutic agent for the treatment of dry eye. This topical solution is classified as an immunomodulatory agent by the manufacturer (Allergan), and is approved "for patients with keratoconjunctivitis sicca...whose tear production is presumed to be suppressed due to ocular inflammation."

In clinical studies, Restasis was shown to ameliorate symptoms in up to 44% of patients and improve basal tear production (as demonstrated by Schirmer testing) in up to 59% of patients after six months of treatment.5 Additionally, a reduction in conjunctival T-lymphocyte infiltration was noted after six months of cyclosporine therapy.6

Allergan heralds Restasis as the first drug proven to effectively treat a cause of dry eye disease, rather than only temporarily alleviate symptoms. But although this product has yielded good results in clinical trials, practitioners have been somewhat reluctant to actively prescribe Restasis for several reasons. First, many are confused as to precisely which dry eye patients will benefit from this therapy. Second, ocular burning has been reported as an adverse event in up to 17% of individuals utilizing the drug.5 Third, the time frame of six months may seem irrationally long for some practitioners and patients to observe improvement in the disease course (even though many patients experience improvement after only a few weeks). Finally, the retail cost of Restasis is somewhat expensive as compared to conventional therapy, on the order of $80 to $100 per month. While these issues cannot be ignored, the fact remains that Restasis may offer great potential benefit to many of our patients. Practitioners need to remain open minded and personally evaluate this product on at least a few patients before reaching the conclusion that it is too slow, too uncomfortable or too expensive. Restasis is prescribed on a bid basis.

Therapies on the Horizon

More products remain under investigation for the treatment of dry eye syndrome. Diquafosol tetrasodium, a topical agent referred to as INS365 Ophthalmic by Inspire Pharmaceuticals, has been shown to activate P2Y2 receptors in the mucosal cells of the palpebral conjunctiva.7,8 These receptors are believed to regulate a variety of cellular responses.

When used topically on the ocular surface, INS365 has been shown to pull salt, water and mucin from conjunctival cells, effectively creating an artificial tear comprised of purely endogenous components.7 Inspire Pharmaceuticals filed a new drug application for INS365 in June 2003, and received an approvable letter from the FDA on December 22, 2003. A launch of this product is anticipated sometime in 2004.

Still in clinical trials is 15(S)-HETE (15-hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid) from Alcon Laboratories. Like INS365, this product is best described as a secretagogue, in that it induces secretions from bodily tissues. Specifically, when instilled in the eye, 15(S)-HETE stimulates production of the glycoprotein Muc1.9 Muc1 is an important component of the tear mucin layer; enhancement of this element may help to alleviate corneal injury and restore corneal integrity in dry eye patients.

 

  1. Swan KC. Use of methylcellulose in ophthalmology. Arch Ophthalmol 1945; 33:378-80.
  2. Freeman JM. The punctum plug: evaluation of a new treatment for the dry eye. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 1975; 79(6):OP874-9.
  3. Christensen MT, Hearn CJ, Meadows DL, Stein JM. Results of a clinical evaluation with a new artificial tear solution containing HP-Guar. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: E-Abstract 2483.
  4. Pollard S, Stone RP, Christensen MT, et al. Extensions in tear film break-up time after instillation of hp-guar artificial tear substitute. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: E-Abstract 2489.
  5. Sall K, Stevenson OD, Mundorf TK, Reis BL. Two multicenter, randomized studies of the efficacy and safety of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion in moderate to severe dry eye disease. CsA Phase 3 Study Group. Ophthalmology 2000;107(4):631-9.
  6. Kunert KS, Tisdale AS, Stern ME, et al. Analysis of topical cyclosporine treatment of patients with dry eye syndrome: Effect on conjunctival lymphocytes. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118(11):1489-96.
  7. Jumblatt JE, Jumblatt MM. Regulation of ocular mucin secretion by P2Y2 nucleotide receptors in rabbit and human conjunctiva. Exp Eye Res 1998; 67(3):341-6.
  8. Fujihara T, Murakami T, Nagano T, et al. INS365 suppresses loss of corneal epithelial integrity by secretion of mucin-like glycoprotein in a rabbit short-term dry eye model. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2002; 18(4):363-70.
  9. Gamache DA, McDonough TJ, Roberts L, et al. The mucin secretagogue 15(S)-HETE protects the cornea and improves tear film integrity in a rabbit model of lacrimal gland inflammation induced dry eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: E-Abstract 2498.

 

  1. Donnenfeld ED, Selkin BA, Perry HD, et al. Controlled evaluation of a bandage contact lens and a topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug in treating traumatic corneal abrasion. Ophthalmology 1995; 102(6):979-84.
  2. Kirkpatrick JN, Hoh HB, Cook SD. no eye pad for corneal abrasion. Eye 1993; 7(3):371-2.
  3. Cullom RD, Chang B. Trauma: Corneal Abrasion. In: Cullom RD, Chang B. The Wills Eye Manual: Office and Emergency Room Diagnosis and Treatment of Eye Dis-ease. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott Co. 1994; 22-3.
  4. Wedge CI, Rootman DS. collagen shields: safety and comfort in the treatment of human corneal abrasion and effect on vision in healthy eyes. Canadien Journal of Ophthalmology 1992; 27(6):295 - 8.
  5. Hall JR Mechanical Corneal Injuries. In: Nyman, J.S. Problems in Optometry: Ocular Emergencies. Philadelphia, PA : J.B. Lippincott Co. 1990; 1(1):32-44.
  6. Silbert JA. A review of therapeautic agents and contact lens wear. J Am Opt Assoc 1996; 67(3):165-72.
  7. Stramer BM, Zieske JD, Jung JC, et al. Molecular mechanisms controlling the fibrotic repair phenotype in cornea: implications for surgical outcomes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44(10):4237-46.
  8. Wu P, Stapleton F, Willcox M.D. The causes of and cures for contact lens-induced peripheral ulcer. Eye Contact Lens. 2003; 29(1 Suppl):S63-194.
  9. Weaver CS, Terrel, KM Evidence-based emergency medicine. Update: do ophthalmic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduce the pain associated with simple corneal abrasion without delaying healing? Ann Emerg Med 2003; 41(1):134-40.
  10. Michael JG, Hug D, Dowd MD. Management of corneal abrasion in children: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Emerg Med 2002; 40(1):67-72.
  11. Kanpolat A, Ucakhan OO. Therapeutic use of Focus Night & Day contact lenses. Cornea. 2003; 22 (8):726-34.

Other reports in this section

Eyelids & Eyelashes | Conjunctiva & Sclera | Cornea
Uvea | Vitreous & Retina | Neuro-Ophthalmic Disease | Oculosystemic Disease

Handbook Main Page