PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and tolerance of mydriatic and cycloplegic spray versus drops for Chinese children. METHODS: The effects of the spray (cyclopentolate 0.25%, phenylephrine 0.625%, and tropicamide 0.5%) and the drops (cyclopentolate 1%, phenylephrine 0.5%, and tropicamide 0.5%) were evaluated in 29 children (58 eyes) in two separate sessions. There was a 1-week period between the applications of the spray and the drops. Dilated pupil size and refraction after cycloplegia were the primary outcome variables used to assess the efficacy. A subjective discomfort score was used to assess acceptance of the spray and the drops. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 4.33 +/- 1.39 years (range, 3 to 8 years). The mean pupil size was 6.9 mm for the spray and 6.6 mm for the drops. The spray appeared to be slightly more effective than the drops, with a mean difference of 0.3 mm that was statistically significant (P = .001, two-tailed t test). No statistically significant difference in cycloplegic response was found between the spray and the drops (P = .535, two-tailed t test). Administration of the spray caused less discomfort than did administration of the drops (P < .001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). CONCLUSIONS: The spray system appears to be clinically equivalent to the drops for achieving effective pupil dilation and cycloplegia, even in a population with dark irides such as ours. Tolerability and acceptance improved because the spray was applied to the closed eyelids.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wong et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: