A comparison of the ability of three common contact lens solutions with different constituents to inhibit growth of <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>

Background: Staphylococcus aureus is a common commensal on skin and mucosal surfaces; its contact with the eye may cause a variety of ocular inflammations and infections such as blepharitis, conjunctivitis and keratitis, amongst others. Soft contact lenses provide perfect conditions for the breeding...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Marsha Oberholzer, Jacques Raubenheimer, Marga Lyell, Sade Pieterse, Aveli Keyser, Armandt Rautenbach, Suandré van Rooyen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: AOSIS 2015-06-01
Series:African Vision and Eye Health
Online Access:https://avehjournal.org/index.php/aveh/article/view/27
id doaj-74183ebf34f64fc4b073cc15cafd6c04
record_format Article
spelling doaj-74183ebf34f64fc4b073cc15cafd6c042020-11-24T23:33:59ZengAOSISAfrican Vision and Eye Health2413-31832410-15162015-06-01741e1e610.4102/aveh.v74i1.27267A comparison of the ability of three common contact lens solutions with different constituents to inhibit growth of <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>Marsha Oberholzer0Jacques Raubenheimer1Marga Lyell2Sade Pieterse3Aveli Keyser4Armandt Rautenbach5Suandré van Rooyen6Department of Optometry, School for Allied Health Professions, University of the Free StateDepartment of Biostatistics, University of the Free StateDepartment of Optometry, School for Allied Health Professions, University of the Free StateDepartment of Optometry, School for Allied Health Professions, University of the Free StateDepartment of Optometry, School for Allied Health Professions, University of the Free StateDepartment of Optometry, School for Allied Health Professions, University of the Free StateDepartment of Optometry, School for Allied Health Professions, University of the Free StateBackground: Staphylococcus aureus is a common commensal on skin and mucosal surfaces; its contact with the eye may cause a variety of ocular inflammations and infections such as blepharitis, conjunctivitis and keratitis, amongst others. Soft contact lenses provide perfect conditions for the breeding of certain pathogens, and disinfecting solutions for contact lenses are therefore of utmost importance. These solutions should be effective in inhibiting the growth of a variety of pathogens to protect the user from ocular infections. Aim: To highlight the need for clinicians to be aware of the effects of various recommended disinfecting contact lens solutions. Method: Three popular disinfecting contact lens solutions readily available in South Africa were chosen. These and a control solution (saline) were prepared and inoculated with S. aureus to evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy of each solution. The primary stand-alone test was used to evaluate the solutions according to the ISO standard specifically for this purpose. Results: The test results indicated that two of the solutions met the ISO standards; the third failed. Of the two that passed the test, only one showed the required 3-log reduction after 30 minutes, as per the ISO standard, although this solution is marketed as a ’10 minute system’. Conclusion: It is important for clinicians to be aware of the complications that may be caused by contaminated solutions, and patients should be warned about the effects thereof. To ensure healthy eyes for our patients, sufficient knowledge regarding the efficacy of recommended multipurpose solutions is necessary. Solutions that meet ISO standards promote good ocular health and ensure sufficient cleaning and disinfecting of contact lenses.https://avehjournal.org/index.php/aveh/article/view/27
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Marsha Oberholzer
Jacques Raubenheimer
Marga Lyell
Sade Pieterse
Aveli Keyser
Armandt Rautenbach
Suandré van Rooyen
spellingShingle Marsha Oberholzer
Jacques Raubenheimer
Marga Lyell
Sade Pieterse
Aveli Keyser
Armandt Rautenbach
Suandré van Rooyen
A comparison of the ability of three common contact lens solutions with different constituents to inhibit growth of <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>
African Vision and Eye Health
author_facet Marsha Oberholzer
Jacques Raubenheimer
Marga Lyell
Sade Pieterse
Aveli Keyser
Armandt Rautenbach
Suandré van Rooyen
author_sort Marsha Oberholzer
title A comparison of the ability of three common contact lens solutions with different constituents to inhibit growth of <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>
title_short A comparison of the ability of three common contact lens solutions with different constituents to inhibit growth of <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>
title_full A comparison of the ability of three common contact lens solutions with different constituents to inhibit growth of <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>
title_fullStr A comparison of the ability of three common contact lens solutions with different constituents to inhibit growth of <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of the ability of three common contact lens solutions with different constituents to inhibit growth of <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>
title_sort comparison of the ability of three common contact lens solutions with different constituents to inhibit growth of <i>staphylococcus aureus</i>
publisher AOSIS
series African Vision and Eye Health
issn 2413-3183
2410-1516
publishDate 2015-06-01
description Background: Staphylococcus aureus is a common commensal on skin and mucosal surfaces; its contact with the eye may cause a variety of ocular inflammations and infections such as blepharitis, conjunctivitis and keratitis, amongst others. Soft contact lenses provide perfect conditions for the breeding of certain pathogens, and disinfecting solutions for contact lenses are therefore of utmost importance. These solutions should be effective in inhibiting the growth of a variety of pathogens to protect the user from ocular infections. Aim: To highlight the need for clinicians to be aware of the effects of various recommended disinfecting contact lens solutions. Method: Three popular disinfecting contact lens solutions readily available in South Africa were chosen. These and a control solution (saline) were prepared and inoculated with S. aureus to evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy of each solution. The primary stand-alone test was used to evaluate the solutions according to the ISO standard specifically for this purpose. Results: The test results indicated that two of the solutions met the ISO standards; the third failed. Of the two that passed the test, only one showed the required 3-log reduction after 30 minutes, as per the ISO standard, although this solution is marketed as a ’10 minute system’. Conclusion: It is important for clinicians to be aware of the complications that may be caused by contaminated solutions, and patients should be warned about the effects thereof. To ensure healthy eyes for our patients, sufficient knowledge regarding the efficacy of recommended multipurpose solutions is necessary. Solutions that meet ISO standards promote good ocular health and ensure sufficient cleaning and disinfecting of contact lenses.
url https://avehjournal.org/index.php/aveh/article/view/27
work_keys_str_mv AT marshaoberholzer acomparisonoftheabilityofthreecommoncontactlenssolutionswithdifferentconstituentstoinhibitgrowthofistaphylococcusaureusi
AT jacquesraubenheimer acomparisonoftheabilityofthreecommoncontactlenssolutionswithdifferentconstituentstoinhibitgrowthofistaphylococcusaureusi
AT margalyell acomparisonoftheabilityofthreecommoncontactlenssolutionswithdifferentconstituentstoinhibitgrowthofistaphylococcusaureusi
AT sadepieterse acomparisonoftheabilityofthreecommoncontactlenssolutionswithdifferentconstituentstoinhibitgrowthofistaphylococcusaureusi
AT avelikeyser acomparisonoftheabilityofthreecommoncontactlenssolutionswithdifferentconstituentstoinhibitgrowthofistaphylococcusaureusi
AT armandtrautenbach acomparisonoftheabilityofthreecommoncontactlenssolutionswithdifferentconstituentstoinhibitgrowthofistaphylococcusaureusi
AT suandrevanrooyen acomparisonoftheabilityofthreecommoncontactlenssolutionswithdifferentconstituentstoinhibitgrowthofistaphylococcusaureusi
AT marshaoberholzer comparisonoftheabilityofthreecommoncontactlenssolutionswithdifferentconstituentstoinhibitgrowthofistaphylococcusaureusi
AT jacquesraubenheimer comparisonoftheabilityofthreecommoncontactlenssolutionswithdifferentconstituentstoinhibitgrowthofistaphylococcusaureusi
AT margalyell comparisonoftheabilityofthreecommoncontactlenssolutionswithdifferentconstituentstoinhibitgrowthofistaphylococcusaureusi
AT sadepieterse comparisonoftheabilityofthreecommoncontactlenssolutionswithdifferentconstituentstoinhibitgrowthofistaphylococcusaureusi
AT avelikeyser comparisonoftheabilityofthreecommoncontactlenssolutionswithdifferentconstituentstoinhibitgrowthofistaphylococcusaureusi
AT armandtrautenbach comparisonoftheabilityofthreecommoncontactlenssolutionswithdifferentconstituentstoinhibitgrowthofistaphylococcusaureusi
AT suandrevanrooyen comparisonoftheabilityofthreecommoncontactlenssolutionswithdifferentconstituentstoinhibitgrowthofistaphylococcusaureusi
_version_ 1725530117542772736