Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Comparison of topical lomefloxacin 0.3 per cent versus topical ciprofloxacin 0.3 per cent for the treatment of presumed bacterial corneal ulcers|
|Citation:||Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. Vol.87, No.3 (2004), 246-254|
|Abstract:||Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of topical lomefloxacin 0.3 per cent with topical ciprofloxacin 0.3 per cent for treating mildly severe suspected bacterial corneal ulcers. Method: This prospective, randomized, double-masked controlled clinical trial was conducted on 41 patients (41 eyes) with suspected bacterial corneal ulcers who were randomized into 2 groups: 23 patients were in the lomefloxacin group and 18 patients in the ciprofloxacin group. All of these corneal ulcers were scraped for gram's stain, KOH preparation and microbiologic cultures before starting treatment. The clinical success rate, the time to cure, the rates of treatment failures, ocular signs and symptoms and the adverse effects of the study medication were evaluated. Results: Topical lomefloxacin is equivalent clinically and statistically to topical ciprofloxacin. No statistically significant treatment differences were found between lomefloxacin (100%) and ciprofloxacin (100%) in terms of success rate. Similarly, no differences were noted in the time to cure (p > 0.05), the treatment failure, or the resolution of the clinical signs and symptoms (p > 0.05). The adverse effects of lomefloxacin were superficial punctate keratitis (26.1%) and irritation (8.7%), whereas those of ciprofloxacin were superficial punctate keratitis (22.2%), white precipitate (11.1%) and irritation (11.1%). However, no statistically significant differences of these adverse effects were found between the two groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Lomefloxacin ophthalmic solution (0.3%) is equivalent clinically and statistically to ciprofloxacin ophthalmic solution (0.3%) for the treatment of mildly severe presumed bacterial corneal ulcers without statistically significant differences in the adverse effects and discomfort.|
|Appears in Collections:||Scopus 2001-2005|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.