Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia
versión impresa ISSN 0034-7280
PORTES, Arlindo José Freire; GOMES, Louise Pellegrino; AMARAL, Beatriz Lopes Moura Brasil do y MASSA, Lívio. Topical drug administration perception: spray x eyedrop. Rev. bras.oftalmol. [online]. 2009, vol.68, n.6, pp. 327-331. ISSN 0034-7280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-72802009000600002.
OBJECTIVE:Evaluate how difficult it is to apply ocular topical medications based on patient observation and answers to a questionnaire. Eye drops were compared to vaporization. METHODS: The study was performed in 2008 and 2009 in Policlinica Ronaldo Gazolla ophthalmological ambulatory. An eyedropper and a vaporizer with carboximetilcelulose 0,5% were used. Each individual tested applied randomly on one of their eyes an eye drop or vaporization. The patients had to answer questions about the practice concerning both forms of topical eye drug application. RESULTS: 36% informed that it was difficult or very difficult to vaporize and 14% to use eye drops. Problems described by patients were considered by 64% for vaporization and by 34% for topical eye drop use (p= 0,0027). 42% of the patients needed more than one eye drop application to have eye drop contact , while 36% of the patients needed more than one application of vaporization in order to get drug eye contact (p= 0,49). In 56% of patients there were an eyedropper tip contact with cilia, however there was not contact when the medicine was vaporized (p=0,0001). CONCLUSION: Vaporization was the safest method to avoid topical ocular drug contamination by manipulation; the greater facility noticed for patients when they administered eye drops was achieved using eye tissues as an eyedropper support.
Palabras llave : Volatilization; Administration, topical; Ophthalmic solutions; Lubricants ; Eye/drug effects.