Background: To compare clinical outcomes of Lotrafilcon A and Balafilcon A silicone hydrogel bandage contact lenses (BCLs) following transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (TPRK). Methods: A randomized, double-blind, contralateral eye study enrolled 41 TPRK patients (82 eyes), with each eye randomly assigned one BCL type. Assessments included uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, ocular pain and irritation, epithelial healing, limbal and conjunctival hyperemia, lens mobility, and the amount of protein deposition on the BCLs. Results: Postoperative day 1 pain score was lower in Group A (2.80 ± 2.35) than in Group B (4.44 ± 2.46, p = 0.003). Group A had significantly less protein deposition (day 3: 9.92 ± 9.82 vs. 25.75 ± 9.86 μg, p < 0.001; day 4: 9.47 ± 10.06 vs. 32.60 ± 16.71 μg, p = 0.005). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of corneal epithelial defect area, corneal epithelial healing time, UDVA, CDVA, limbal or conjunctival hyperemia, and lens movement. Conclusions: Lotrafilcon A outperformed Balafilcon A in reducing ocular pain, foreign body sensation, and protein deposition, suggesting that Lotrafilcon A may be a more suitable therapeutic BCL option following TPRK.

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of Lotrafilcon A and Balafilcon A silicone hydrogel contact lenses used as therapeutic bandage contact lenses (BCL) following transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (TPRK). Materials and Methods: A randomized, double-blind, contralateral study was conducted on 82 eyes of 41 consecutive TPRK-treated patients, randomly assigned to wear either Lotrafilcon A or Balafilcon A BCL in their right and left eyes (groups A or B). The postoperative assessment included uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, ocular pain/irritation, epithelial healing, limbal and conjunctival hyperemia, lens mobility, and the amount of protein deposition accumulated on the BCLs. Results: On the first postoperative day, the pain intensity was scored as 2.80 ± 2.35 for group A and 4.44 ± 2.46 for group B (P< 0.001). The amount of protein deposition on the BCLs was also significantly lower in group A compared to group B. For BCLs removed on day three, the protein deposition was 9.92 ± 9.82 vs. 25.75 ± 9.86 μg for groups A and B (P< 0.001). For BCLs removed on day four, the protein deposition was 9.47 ± 10.06 vs. 32.60 ± 16.71 μg (P=0.005). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of corneal epithelial defect area, corneal epithelial healing time, UDVA, CDVA, limbal or conjunctival hyperemia, and lens movement. Conclusions: Lotrafilcon A performed better than Balafilcon A in terms of reducing ocular pain, foreign body sensation, and protein deposition, suggesting that Lotrafilcon A may be a more suitable option for therapeutic BCL use following TPRK.