Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Lack of effect of a topical regenerative agent on re-epithelialization rate of canine spontaneous chronic corneal epithelial defects: A randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study

  • L. Sebbag*
  • , R. Allbaugh
  • , T. Strong
  • , R. Strauss
  • , R. Wehrman
  • , B. Foote
  • , C. Peterson
  • , G. Ben-Shlomo
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Scopus citations

Abstract

Spontaneous chronic corneal epithelial defects (SCCEDs) are characteristic ulcers in dogs that are refractory to healing. The aim of the study was to evaluate the use of a topical regenerative agent to promote healing of SCCEDs. Nineteen dogs (20 eyes) were randomized to receive either regenerative agent (10 eyes) or placebo (10 eyes) every 48 h following corneal debridement, which was repeated 1 week later if the SCCED had not yet healed. The mean ± standard deviation time to re-epithelialization was 17.3 ± 12.8 days for the group treated with a topical regenerative agent and 19.3 ± 11.7 days for the group treated with a placebo; the cumulative healing rates were not statistically different (P > 0.650). A positive association was found between the initial size of the ulcer and the time to re-epithelialization (r = 0.555, P = 0.011). Although well tolerated by dogs, there was no therapeutic advantage in using a topical regenerative agent for re-epithelialization of SCCEDs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)63-65
Number of pages3
JournalVeterinary Journal
Volume233
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2018
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd

Keywords

  • Cacicol
  • Canine
  • Indolent ulcer
  • Spontaneous chronic corneal epithelial defect
  • Topical regenerating agent

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Lack of effect of a topical regenerative agent on re-epithelialization rate of canine spontaneous chronic corneal epithelial defects: A randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this