• Korean Journal of Head & Neck Oncology
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.100-103
• /
• 2014

경부 염증을 주 증상으로 하는 이상와 누공의 치료로써, 전통적으로 외과적 절제술이 주로 시행되었으나, 근래에 들어서는 수술 관련 위험성이 적은 삼염화아세트산 소작술이 선호되고 있다. 본원에서, 2004년 5월부터 2013년 3월까지 컷 다운 튜브를 이용한 삼염화아세트산 소작술을 통해 이상와 누공을 치료한 5명 환자의 증례를 보고한다. 이전까지의 삼염화아세트산 소작술에서, 여러 도구를 이용해 누공의 입구만을 막는 시도를 했던 것과는 달리, 본 증례에서는, 컷 다운 튜브를 이용해 20~50%의 삼염화아세트산을 누공로에 주입함으로써, 이상와 누공 전장을 폐쇄하고자 하였다. 3명의 환자에서는 추적 관찰 중 재발 소견 없었으며, 2명의 환자는 추적 관찰 기간 중 재발하여 삼염화아세트산 소작술을 재시행하였다. 모든 증례에서 부작용 및 합병증은 발생하지 않았다.

• Proceedings of the KOR-BRONCHOESO Conference
• /
• 2007.10a
• /
• pp.48-48
• /
• 2007

• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.51-57
• /
• 2014

Purpose: The present study was conducted to establish the experimental condition for the proper evaluation of protein removal efficacy when developing protein removal agents. Its protein removal efficacy was further analyzed and compared with the result from protein removal efficacy against protein deposition on contact lens to suggest the evaluation method for efficacy of protein removal agents. Methods: Protein digestibility assay presented in the Korean pharmacopoeia was selected to establish the evaluation method for efficacy of papain, pancreatin, subtilisin A and protease itself as a ingredient and protein removal tablets or solution containing those enzymes and find a suitable test conditions. Furthermore, the cleaning efficacy of commercially available protein removal tablets and solution on balafilcon A lens deposited with protein artificially was measured and the correlation between two evaluation methods was further analyzed. Results: When pancreatin itself and the product containing pancreatin was evaluated by protein digestibility assay, both reached 28 IU/mg, the standard value of protein digestibility suggested by the Korean pharmacopoeia. In case of protease and subtilisin A tested with trichloroacetic acid B solution, both of them met the enzyme activity level proposed by the manufacturers when they were evaluated by protein digestibility assay however, papain and subtilisin A tested with trichloroacetic acid A solution were not reached the enzyme activity level. Among protein removal agents, three products except a product containing pancreatin did not meet the enzyme activity value specified by the manufacturer when they were evaluated by protein digestibility assay. However, actual protein removal efficacy of three products except a papain-containing product on the lens was greater than 90% protein removal. In the case of papain-containing protein removal product, its effect was not measured by protein digestibility assay however, its actual protein removal efficacy on the lens reached 73.72%. Conclusions: From the results, it was confirmed that the efficacy of protein removal agents for contact lens should be evaluated by different method according to the type of proteolytic enzyme contained. That is, the protein removal agents containing pancreatin, protease and subtilisin A can be evaluated by protein digestibility assay and protein removal efficiency evaluation and the products containing papain can be effectively evaluated by only the evaluation method for protein removal efficiency employing the lens.