Observation of solution-induced corneal staining with fluorescein, rose bengal and lissamine green

Ever since sodium fluorescein (‘fluorescein’ [FL]) was first used to investigate the ocular surface over a century ago, the term ‘staining’ has been taken to mean the presence of ocular surface fluorescence [1]. This term has not been necessarily taken to infer any particular mechanism of causation, and indeed, can be attributed to a variety of possible aetiologies [2]. In recent times, there has been considerable interest in a form of ocular surface fluorescence seen in association with the use of certain combinations of soft contact lenses and multipurpose solutions. The first clinical account of this phenomenon was reported by Jones et al. [3], which was followed by a more formal investigation by the same author in 2002 [4]. Jones et al described this appearance as a ‘classic solution-based toxicity reaction’. Subsequently, this appearance has come to be known as ‘solution-induced corneal staining’ or more recently by the acronym ‘SICS’ [5]. The term SICS is potentially problematic in that from a cell biology point of view, there is an inference that ‘staining’ means the entry of a dye into corneal epithelial cells. Morgan and Maldonado-Codina [2] noted there was no foundation of solid scientific literature underpinning our understanding of the true basic causative mechanisms of this phenomenon; since that time, further work has been published in this field [6] and [7] but questions still remain about the precise aetiology of this phenomenon...

Corneal staining and cell shedding during the development of solution-induced corneal staining

Purpose. This non-dispensing cross-over study was conducted to determine if lenses presoaked in Opti-Free RepleniSH (OFR) or ReNu MultiPlus (RMP) cause solution-induced corneal staining (SICS) and subsequent cell sloughing before the typical 2 h in vivo examination point.

Methods. Study lenses (PureVision) were worn bilaterally by 13 participants for periods of 15, 30, 60, and 120 min using two different contralateral care regimen pairings. The lens worn on the test eye was soaked overnight in either OFR or RMP and the control eye in Clear Care (CC). After lens removal, corneal staining was rated on a scale of 0 (negligible) to 100 (severe) for four peripheral quadrants and the central region, and the differential global staining score was calculated by subtracting baseline staining scores. Following the staining assessment, corneal cells were collected from the ocular surface using a non-contact irrigation system to determine ocular cell shedding rates.

Results. Differential global staining score with OFR was greater than CC with the differences being statistically significant at 30 and 60 min (p < 0.01). Maximum staining with RMP was significantly greater than OFR and peaked after 60 and 120 min of lens wear (p < 0.01). On average, 710 ± 470 ocular cells were collected after lens wear, with similar shedding seen independent of solution or lens wear duration (p > 0.05).

Conclusions. SICS occurred earlier but to a significantly lower degree when PureVision lenses were presoaked in OFR compared with RMP, while lenses presoaked in CC did not cause SICS. Ocular surface cell shedding after lens removal was not impacted by lens wear durations of <=2 h.

Impact of a rub and rinse on solution-induced corneal staining

Purpose. To investigate whether the inclusion of a rub and rinse step before contact lens disinfection has an impact on solution-induced corneal staining.

Methods. This was a prospective, double-masked, single investigator study. Twenty participants were recruited for two visits, where balafilcon-A lenses were worn bilaterally for 2 h. Each pair of lenses was prepared using two different methodologies. The “control” lens was transferred from the blister pack directly into a storage case containing polyhexamethylene biguanide-based lens care solution. The contralateral “test” lens was rubbed and simultaneously rinsed using the same polyhexamethylene biguanide-based care solution, for either 60 s (visit 1) or 20 s (visit 2). Both lenses were then soaked in the solution overnight. After baseline corneal staining assessments, the lenses were inserted following a randomized contralateral model. After 2 h, lenses were removed, corneal staining was regraded, and comfort scores were obtained.

Results. Rubbed and rinsed test lenses induced significantly less corneal staining than control lenses for all participants during visit 1 (mean ± SD: 516 ± 843 vs. 2170 ± 902; p < 0.001) and visit 2 (522 ± 417 vs. 2091 ± 965; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the test lenses during visits 1 and 2 (p = 0.72) or controls (p = 0.50). Comfort scores did not differ between eyes (p > 0.05).

Conclusions. Corneal staining induced after 2 h of lens wear with the combination of balafilcon-A and polyhexamethylene biguanide-based lens care solution can be significantly reduced by including a rub and rinse step before overnight soaking. Further work is required to establish the longevity of this effect during the monthly wearing cycle.

How optometrists record corneal staining

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine current approaches adopted by optometrists to the recording of corneal staining following fluorescein instillation. Methods: An anonymous ‘record-keeping task’ was sent to all 756 practitioners who are members of the Queensland Division of Optometrists Association Australia. This task comprised a form on which appeared a colour photograph depicting contact lens solution-induced corneal staining. Next to the photograph was an empty box, in which practitioners were asked to record their observations. Practitioners were also asked to indicate the level of severity of the condition at which treatment would be instigated. Results: Completed task forms were returned by 228 optometrists, representing a 30 per cent response rate. Ninety-two per cent of respondents offered a diagnosis. The most commonly used descriptive terms were ‘superficial punctate keratitis’ (36 per cent of respondents) and ‘punctate staining’ (29 per cent). The level of severity and location of corneal staining were noted by 69 and 68 per cent of respondents, respectively. A numerical grade was assigned by 44 per cent of respondents. Only three per cent nominated the grading scale used. The standard deviation of assigned grades was � 0.6. The condition was sketched by 35 per cent of respondents and two per cent stated that they would take a photograph of the eye. Ten per cent noted the eye in which the condition was being observed. Opinions of the level of severity at which treatment for corneal staining should be instigated varied considerably between practitioners, ranging from ‘any sign of corneal staining’ to ‘grade 4 staining’. Conclusion: Although most practitioners made a sensible note of the condition and properly recorded the location of corneal staining, serious deficiencies were evident regarding other aspects of record-keeping. Ongoing programs of professional optometric education should reinforce good practice in relation to clinical record-keeping.

Corneal staining as a response to contact lens wear

Objective: To review the effects of contact lenses on the corneal surface.

Methods: A review of the literature and in-house research of corneal staining and its various forms of presentation.

Results: Corneal staining manifests in many different forms. The severity of staining or insult of the cornea is usually determined by the extent (area of coverage), density, and depth. The cause of staining is multifactorial, and its location is often linked to the type of lens that is being worn, the solution used to clean/disinfect the lens, the state of hydration of the soft lens, and the state of the cornea that has been affected by the lens.

Conclusions: Sodium fluorescein dye effectively highlights corneal integrity changes referred to as corneal staining. This review describes the manifestations, the cause, the mechanisms, and the methods of remediation of corneal staining.

Human corneal epithelial cell shedding and fluorescein staining in response to silicone hydrogel lenses and contact lens disinfecting solutions

A pilot study was conducted to evaluate human corneal epithelial cell shedding in response to wearing a silicone hydrogel contact lens/solution combination inducing corneal staining. The nature of ex vivo collected cells staining with fluorescein was also examined. A contralateral eye study was conducted in which up to eight participants were unilaterally exposed to a multipurpose contact lens solution/silicone hydrogel lens combination previously shown to induce corneal staining (renu® fresh™ and balafilcon A; test eye), with the other eye using a combination of balafilcon A soaked in a hydrogen peroxide care system (Clear Care®; control eye). Lenses were worn for 2, 4 or 6 hours. Corneal staining was graded after lens removal. The Ocular Surface Cell Collection Apparatus was used to collect cells from the cornea and the contact lens. In the test eye, maximum solution-induced corneal staining (SICS) was observed after 2 hours of lens wear (reducing significantly by 4 hours; p < 0.001). There were significantly more cells collected from the test eye after 4 hours of lens wear when compared to the control eye and the collection from the test eye after 2 hours (for both; n = 5; p < 0.001). The total cell yield at 4 hours was 813 ± 333 and 455 ± 218 for the test and control eyes, respectively (N = 5, triplicate, p = 0.003). A number of cells were observed to have taken up the fluorescein dye from the initial fluorescein instillation. Confocal microscopy of fluorescein-stained cells revealed that fluorescein was present throughout the cell cytoplasm and was retained in the cells for many hours after recovery from the corneal surface. This pilot study indicates that increased epithelial cell shedding was associated with a lens-solution combination which induces SICS. Our data provides insight into the transient nature of the SICS reaction and the nature of fluorescein staining observed in SICS.

Putting vital stains in context

While vital staining remains a cornerstone in the diagnosis of ocular disease and contact lens complications, there are many misconceptions regarding the properties of commonly used dyes by eye-care practitioners and what is and what is not corneal staining after instillation of sodium fluorescein. Similarly, the proper use and diagnostic utility of rose Bengal and lissamine green B, the other two ophthalmic dyes commonly used for assessing ocular complications, have similarly remained unclear. Due to the limitations of vital stains for definitive diagnosis, concomitant signs and symptoms in addition to a complete patient history are required. Over the past decade, there have been many reports of a type of corneal staining—often referred to as solution-induced corneal staining (SICS)—that is observed with the use of multipurpose solutions in combination with soft lenses, more specifically silicone hydrogel lenses. Some authors believe that SICS is a sign of lens/solution incompatibility; however, new research shows that SICS may be neither a measure of lens/solution biocompatibility nor ‘true’ corneal staining, as that observed in pathological situations. A large component of SICS may be a benign phenomenon, known as preservative-associated transient hyperfluorescence (PATH). There is a lack of correlated signs and/or symptoms with SICS/PATH. Several properties of SICS/PATH, such as appearance and duration, differentiate it from pathological corneal staining. This paper reviews the properties of vital stains, their use and limitations in assessment of the ocular surface, the aetiology of corneal staining, characteristics of SICS/PATH that differentiate it from pathological corneal staining and what the SICS/PATH phenomenon means for contact lens-wearing patients.

Response to re : putting vital stains in context

A response to: "Re: Putting vital stains in context" by Eric Papas & Lyndon Jones, published in the same issue of this journal. "There has been considerable discussion in recent times about the origins of solution-induced corneal staining (SICS) and I welcome this opportunity to further clarify some points raised in my paper1 in relation to certain issues highlighted by Drs Papas and Jones.2 Part of the difficulty in understanding these phenomena relates to the imprecise terminology used. For example, Drs Papas and Jones state ‘. . . SICS..."

Response to re : putting vital stains in context

A response to "Re: Putting vital stains in context" by Charles W McMonnies, published in the same issue of this journal. "I thank Professor McMonnies for his thoughtful comments,1 which rightly forcemeto more directly address the clinical ramifications of solution-induced corneal staining (SICS). I concur with his observation that determining whether the staining can be attributed to preservative-associated transient hyperfluorescence (PATH) or true pathology can be difficult in a typical clinical situation, perhaps requiring two visits in a single day. There is no easy answer to this dilemma..."

Comparative performance of analytical techniques for polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) in ophthalmic solutions

Purpose: The use of PHMB as a disinfectant in contact lens multipurpose solutions has been at the centre of much debate in recent times, particularly in relation to the issue of solution induced corneal staining. Clinical studies have been carried out which suggest different effects with individual contact lens materials used in combination with specific PHMB containing care regimes. There does not appear to be, however, a reliable analytical technique that would detect and quantify with any degree of accuracy the specific levels of PHMB that are taken up and released from individual solutions by the various contact lens materials. Methods: PHMB is a mixture of positively charged polymer units of varying molecular weight that has maximum absorbance wavelength of 236 nm. On the basis of these properties a range of assays including capillary electrophoresis, HPLC, a nickelnioxime colorimetric technique, mass spectrophotometry, UV spectroscopy and ion chromatography were assessed paying particular attention to each of their constraints and detection levels. Particular interest was focused on the relative advantage of contactless conductivity compared to UV and mass spectrometry detection in capillary electrophoresis (CE). This study provides an overview of the comparative performance of these techniques. Results: The UV absorbance of PHMB solutions, ranging from 0.0625 to 50 ppm was measured at 236 nm. Within this range the calibration curve appears to be linear however, absorption values below 1 ppm (0.0001%) were extremely difficult to reproduce. The concentration of PHMB in solutions is in the range of 0.0002–0.00005% and our investigations suggest that levels of PHMB below 0.0001% (levels encountered in uptake and release studies) can not be accurately estimated, in particular when analysing complex lens care solutions which can contain competitively absorbing, and thus interfering, species in the solution. The use of separative methodologies, such as CE using UV detection alone is similarly limited. Alternative techniques including contactless conductivity detection offer greater discrimination in complex solutions together with the opportunity for dual channel detection. Preliminary results achieved by TraceDec1 contactless conductivity detection, (Gain 150%, Offset 150) in conjunction with the Agilent capillary electrophoresis system using a bare fused silica capillary (extended light path, 50 mid, total length 64.5 cm, effective length 56 cm) and a cationic buffer at pH 3.2, exhibit great potential with reproducible PHMB split peaks. Conclusions: PHMB-based solutions are commonly associated with the potential to invoke corneal staining in combination with certain contact lens materials. However this terminology ‘PHMBbased solution’ is used primarily because PHMB itself has yet to be adequately implicated as the causative agent of the staining and compromised corneal cell integrity. The lack of well characterised adequately sensitive assays, coupled with the range of additional components that characterise individual care solutions pose a major barrier to the investigation of PHMB interactions in the lenswearing eye.