It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Previous studies have reported silicone oil (SO) applied to needles and syringes in the vitreous of patients after intravitreal injections. We evaluated four syringes (SR 1-mL insulin, Saldanha-Rodrigues; BD 1-mL Tuberculin Slip Tip, Becton–Dickinson; BD Ultra-Fine 0.3 mL, HSW Norm-Ject Tuberculin, Henke Sass Wolf) and 10 needles (BD PrecisionGlide 27- and 30-gauge (G); BD Eclipse and JBP Nanoneedle 27-, 30-, 33- and 34-G; TSK Invisible Needle and 27 and 30-G Steriject Control Hub). The protein-free buffer samples injected into the syringes and needles under study were collected in an Eppendorf tube and taken to Flow imaging microscopy, that characterized the concentration and morphology of the microsized particles. The number of particles was analyzed. The coefficients of variation (CV) were the primary outcome. The Feltz and Miller test compared the CVs. The significance level was 5%. Numerous particles and high CVs were associated with both devices, needles and syringes; the comparisons among them did not reach significance. The BD Ultrafine 0.3 mL syringe (149.7%) had the highest CV and the SO-free HSW Norm-Ject (66.4%) syringe the lowest, and the TSK Invisible needle (149.5%) had the highest and the BD Precision Glide 30G needle (35.9%) needle the lowest. In conclusion, particle release, including those with SO morphology, varied greatly among instruments, even from the same lots, which is relevant considering that fewer particles are injected into some eyes compared with others.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Hospital de Olhos de Sergipe, Aracaju, Brazil; Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristovão, Brazil (GRID:grid.411252.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2285 6801)
2 Federal University of São Paulo, Department of Ophthalmology, São Paulo, Brazil (GRID:grid.411249.b) (ISNI:0000 0001 0514 7202)
3 University of Colorado, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, USA (GRID:grid.430503.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 0703 675X)
4 Hospital de Olhos de Sergipe, Aracaju, Brazil (GRID:grid.411249.b); Federal University of São Paulo, Department of Ophthalmology, São Paulo, Brazil (GRID:grid.411249.b) (ISNI:0000 0001 0514 7202)