Validity of fluorexon disodium versus sodium fluorescein for use in Goldmann tonometry.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety, validity, and comfort of 0.35% fluorexon disodium and 0.4% benoxinate (Flura-Safe) compared with the gold standard of 0.25% sodium fluorescein and 0.4% benoxinate for Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). METHODS: This was a double-masked, randomized, crossover clinical trial. Subjects received either the standard or study formulation for GAT on visit 1 and the other formulation 1 week later. At each visit, tonometer mire quality, adequacy of fluorescence, ease of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements, the IOP value, and anesthetizing efficacy of the formulation were assessed. Subjects graded general comfort, soreness and irritation, and burning and stinging of each formulation at 1 and 5 minutes after drop instillation. RESULTS: Sixty-seven subjects completed the study. The mean IOP was 13.9 +/- 2.7 with fluorexon and 13.9 +/- 2.8 mm Hg with fluorescein OD and 14.0 +/- 2.8 with fluorexon and 13.9 +/- 2.5 mm Hg with fluorescein OS. The measurements with the 2 formulations were highly correlated for OD and OS, and the differences between the 2 measurements were not clinically significant. There was also no significant difference between the 2 drops in mire clarity, adequacy of fluorescence, or corneal anesthesia. However, fluorexon was statistically more comfortable (P = 0.039) and caused less stinging and burning (P = 0.014) at 1 minute versus the fluorescein formulation. CONCLUSION: Not only was the new fluorexon product accurate and effective in GAT, it was also statistically more comfortable and had a less stinging and burning effect at 1 minute after drop instillation than the traditional fluorescein formulation. Because fluorexon is less likely to stain soft contact lenses, this may be the dye-anesthetic formulation of choice for practices that routinely perform GAT.

Accommodative insufficiency is the primary source of symptoms in children diagnosed with convergence insufficiency.

PURPOSE: Accommodative insufficiency (AI) and convergence insufficiency (CI) have been associated with similar symptomology and frequently present at the same time. The severity of symptomology in CI has been linked to the severity of the CI, suggesting a dose-dependent relationship. However, with increasing severity of CI also comes increased comorbidity of AI. AI alone has been shown to cause significant symptomology. We hypothesize that AI drives the symptoms in CI with a comorbid AI condition (CIwAI) and that it is the increased coincidence of AI, rather than increased severity of CI, which causes additional symptomology. METHODS: Elementary school children (n = 299) participated in a vision screening that included tests for CI and AI and the CISS-V15 symptom survey. They were categorized into four groups:1) normal binocular vision (NBV); 2) AI-only; 3) CI-only; and 4) CIwAI. One hundred seventy elementary school children fell into the categories of interest. RESULTS: Pairwise comparison of the group means on the symptom survey showed: 1) children with AI-only (mean = 19.7, p = 0.006) and children with CIwAI (mean = 22.8, p = 0.001) had significantly higher symptom scores than children with NBV (mean = 10.3); and 2) children with CI-only (mean = 12.9, p = 0.54) had a similar symptom score to children with NBV. Using a two-factor analysis of variance (AI and CI), the AI effect was significant (AI mean = 21.56; no AI mean = 11.56, p < 0.001), whereas neither the CI effect (p = 0.16) nor the CI by AI interaction effect (p = 0.66) were significant. CONCLUSION: CI is a separate and unique clinical condition and can occur without a comorbid AI condition, our CI-only group. Past reports of high symptom scores for children with CI are the result of the presence of AI, a common comorbid condition. When AI is factored out, and children with CI only are evaluated, they are not significantly more symptomatic than children with NBV.