{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017872340425531916, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00425531914893617, 'mean_word_length': 5.0932642487046635, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Alkali Burn of the Ocular Surface Associated With a Commonly Used Antifog Agent for Eyewear: Two Cases and a Review of Previous Reports

Purpose: To report 2 cases of ocular chemical burns associated with the use of a swim goggle antifog agent and to review the literature for this and similar antifog products. Methods: Case reports and systematic review of the medical literature, material safety data, product safety reports, and consumer reviews. Results: Two males, one 46 years and the other 41 years, were referred to our clinic with chemical burns of the ocular surface after using the same goggle antifog agent while swimming in a triathlon. Both sustained significant epithelial defects. Fortunately, with prompt treatment, both of our patients returned to their baseline vision within a few weeks without suffering sight-threatening complications. Conclusions: These are the first cases of ocular chemical burn secondary to use of an eyewear antifog agent to be reported in the medical literature. Similar reports found in consumer forums suggest that our cases are not isolated and these products may have the potential to cause vision-threatening chemical burns.