Literature DB >> 15592115

Short-term physiologic response in neophyte subjects fitted with hydrogel and silicone hydrogel contact lenses.

Carole Maldonado-Codina1, Philip B Morgan, Cristina M Schnider, Nathan Efron.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the short-term physiologic response to three soft lens materials with different oxygen permeability characteristics.
METHODS: Forty-three neophytes were randomly prescribed Acuvue 2, Acuvue Advance (Johnson & Johnson Vision Care), or Focus Night & Day (CIBA Vision) for 4 weeks on a daily-wear basis. A further 19 subjects did not wear lenses (control). Experimental and control subjects were examined 2 and 4 weeks after dispensing. Ocular physiologic response was measured with a slitlamp biomicroscope in a strictly masked fashion.
RESULTS: Limbal redness increased in the Acuvue 2 group compared with the other two groups. Conjunctival redness increased more in the Acuvue 2 group than in the Acuvue Advance group. More conjunctival staining was seen with the Acuvue Advance and Focus Night & Day groups compared with the Acuvue 2 group. Increased scores for papillary conjunctivitis were seen in the Focus Night & Day group compared with the Acuvue Advance group.
CONCLUSIONS: The reduced level of limbal redness seen with the Acuvue Advance and Focus Night & Day groups suggests that these lenses provide more oxygen to the ocular surface than the Acuvue 2 lens to a degree that can be observed clinically. The conjunctival staining response was similar for the Acuvue Advance and Focus Night & Day groups. The results for the Acuvue Advance and Focus Night & Day groups for papillary conjunctivitis may reflect differences in their material and surface properties.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15592115

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Optom Vis Sci        ISSN: 1040-5488            Impact factor:   1.973


  6 in total

1.  Ocular surface and tear film status among contact lens wearers and non-wearers who use VDT at work: comparing three different lens types.

Authors:  Ana Tauste; Elena Ronda; Valborg Baste; Magne Bråtveit; Bente E Moen; María-Del-Mar Seguí Crespo
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 3.015

2.  Evaluated Conjunctival Blood Flow Velocity in Daily Contact Lens Wearers.

Authors:  Yingying Shi; Liang Hu; Wan Chen; Dongyi Qu; Hong Jiang; Jianhua Wang
Journal:  Eye Contact Lens       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 2.018

3.  Lid Wiper Microvascular Responses as an Indicator of Contact Lens Discomfort.

Authors:  Zhihong Deng; Jianhua Wang; Hong Jiang; Zohra Fadli; Che Liu; Jia Tan; Jin Zhou
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 5.258

Review 4.  Contact lens-related corneal infection: Intrinsic resistance and its compromise.

Authors:  Suzanne M J Fleiszig; Abby R Kroken; Vincent Nieto; Melinda R Grosser; Stephanie J Wan; Matteo M E Metruccio; David J Evans
Journal:  Prog Retin Eye Res       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 21.198

Review 5.  Contact lens wear and dry eyes: challenges and solutions.

Authors:  Maria Markoulli; Sailesh Kolanu
Journal:  Clin Optom (Auckl)       Date:  2017-02-15

6.  Dynamic Changes of Ocular Surface in First-Time Contact Lens Wearers and the Effective Factors of Contact Lens Discomfort.

Authors:  Yangyang Xu; Zhiqiang Xu; Xupeng Shu; Qiaoli Liu; Yuzhou Wang; Jiahui Xia; Yong Li; Jia Qu; Liang Hu
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-03-11
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.