Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Loteprednol and ketorolac reduce eye inflammation after paracentesis
By Miranda, Hanna Rodrigues et al.·Published in Veterinary ophthalmology·2026·Faculdade de Medicina Veteriná, Brazil·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Effects of Loteprednol Etabonate and Ketorolac Tromethamine on Intraocular Inflammation and Oxidative Stress After Paracentesis-Induced Blood-Aqueous Barrier Breakdown in Cats.
- Species:
- cat
Plain-English summary
A group of 30 cats underwent a procedure that caused inflammation in their eyes, and they were treated with either loteprednol etabonate (LE), ketorolac tromethamine (KT), or saline. After treatment, both LE and KT significantly lowered levels of a substance linked to inflammation, while LE also helped maintain healthier levels of antioxidants and prevented the pupils from getting too small. This suggests that LE may be more effective in protecting the eyes from oxidative stress compared to KT. Both treatments showed promise, but further research is needed to explore their long-term effects.
People also search for: cat eye inflammation treatment · loteprednol etabonate for cats · ketorolac tromethamine side effects in cats
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of loteprednol etobonate (LE) and ketorolac tromethamine (KT) on pupil diameter (PD) and aqueous humor levels of prostaglandin E(PGE), total protein (TP), and glutathione (GSH) following paracentesis-induced intraocular inflammation in cats. METHODS: Thirty cats (n = 10/group) underwent anterior chamber paracentesis at T1 and T2 (60 min apart). At T1, the right eye received one drop of LE, KT, or saline (CG). PD was measured at T1 and T2, and aqueous humor samples were analyzed for PGE, TP, and GSH. RESULTS: At T1, PD, PGE, TP, and GSH levels did not differ among groups (p > 0.05). At T2, PGEconcentrations were significantly lower in LE (p < 0.0001) and KT (p = 0.01) groups when compared to CG. When compared to CG, TP values were significantly lower only in the LE group (p = 0.002). GSH levels decreased significantly across all groups (p < 0.01), maintaining significantly higher levels in the LE group (p = 0.04). PD decreased significantly in the CG (p = 0.003) and KT (p = 0.01) groups, but not in the LE group (p = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: LE and KT effectively reduced PGElevels following paracentesis. LE also significantly decreased TP levels, mitigated miosis, and preserved GSH, indicating reduced oxidative stress. Considering that KT also reduced PGElevels, further studies are warranted to determine whether KT might effectively reduce protein influx into the anterior chamber at later time points.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40243325/