Putting vital stains in context

Free to read While vital staining remains a cornerstone in the diagnosis of ocular disease and contact lens complications, there are many misconceptions regarding the properties of commonly used dyes by eye-care practitioners and what is and what is not corneal staining after instillation of sodium fluorescein. Similarly, the proper use and diagnostic utility of rose Bengal and lissamine green B, the other two ophthalmic dyes commonly used for assessing ocular complications, have similarly remained unclear. Due to the limitations of vital stains for definitive diagnosis, concomitant signs and symptoms in addition to a complete patient history are required. Over the past decade, there have been many reports of a type of corneal staining—often referred to as solution-induced corneal staining (SICS)—that is observed with the use of multipurpose solutions in combination with soft lenses, more specifically silicone hydrogel lenses. Some authors believe that SICS is a sign of lens/solution incompatibility; however, new research shows that SICS may be neither a measure of lens/solution biocompatibility nor ‘true’ corneal staining, as that observed in pathological situations. A large component of SICS may be a benign phenomenon, known as preservative-associated transient hyperfluorescence (PATH). There is a lack of correlated signs and/or symptoms with SICS/PATH. Several properties of SICS/PATH, such as appearance and duration, differentiate it from pathological corneal staining. This paper reviews the properties of vital stains, their use and limitations in assessment of the ocular surface, the aetiology of corneal staining, characteristics of SICS/PATH that differentiate it from pathological corneal staining and what the SICS/PATH phenomenon means for contact lens-wearing patients