Advertisement

Comparison of eyedrop instillation technique with and without a delivery device in inexperienced patients

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the instillation of eyedrops with and without Xal-Ease® delivery device in inexperienced patients based on patient observation and answers to a questionnaire.

Methods

This prospective study included consecutive patients considered inexperienced in instilling eyedrops. After a short explanation about the methods, drop instillation technique was evaluated with and without the device. Subjects also completed a survey regarding drop administration and satisfaction. Successful instillation was defined as instilling a single drop in the eye without touching the eye with the bottle tip on the first attempt.

Results

The overall rate of successful instillation (43%) was the same for both techniques (with or without the device). Without the device, the bottle tip touched the eye or periocular tissues in 8 eyes (35%) compared with 0 (0%) with the Xal-Ease® (p<0.01). The number of eyedrops dispensed was significantly higher with Xal-Ease® (1.4 ± 0.5 without the device versus 2.0 ± 1.1 with Xal-Ease®; p = 0.03). Using the Xal-Ease® device, 13 (57%) of the patients needed to make more than one attempt, versus 6 (26%) patients without the device (p = 0.04). Overall, 9 (39%) preferred traditional instillation and 14 (61%) preferred to use the device.

Conclusions

Xal-Ease® successfully decreased mechanical contact of the tip of the bottle. However, Xal-Ease® failed to help inexperienced subjects dispense fewer drops, or improve accuracy, suggesting that more training might be needed to achieve a good eyedrop administration technique with the device.

Eur J Ophthalmol 2016; 26(6): 594 - 597

Article Type: ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

DOI:10.5301/ejo.5000797

Authors

Beatriz F. Gomes, Marília Lordello, Luiz F. Celli, Marcony R. Santhiago, Haroldo V. Moraes

Article History

Disclosures

Financial support: No financial support was received for this submission.
Conflict of interest: None of the authors has conflict of interest with this submission.

This article is available as full text PDF.

  • If you are a Subscriber, please log in now.

  • Article price: Eur 36,00
  • You will be granted access to the article for 72 hours and you will be able to download any format (PDF or ePUB). The article will be available in your login area under "My PayPerView". You will need to register a new account (unless you already own an account with this journal), and you will be guided through our online shop. Online purchases are paid by Credit Card through PayPal.
  • If you are not a Subscriber you may:
  • Subscribe to this journal
  • Unlimited access to all our archives, 24 hour a day, every day of the week.

Authors

Affiliations

  •  Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
  •  Federal Hospital of Bonsucesso, Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
  •  University of São Paulo, São Paulo - Brazil

Article usage statistics

The blue line displays unique views in the time frame indicated.
The yellow line displays unique downloads.
Views and downloads are counted only once per session.

No supplementary material is available for this article.