AIM: To determine the dynamic emitted temperature changes of the anterior eye during and immediately after wearing different materials and modalities of soft contact lenses. METHOD: A dynamic, non-contact infrared camera (Thermo-Tracer TH7102MX, NEC San-ei) was used to record the ocular surface temperature (OST) in 48 subjects (mean age 21.7 +/- 1.9 years) wearing: lotrafilcon-A contact lenses on a daily wear (LDW; n=8) or continuous wear (LCW; n=8) basis; balafilcon-A contact lenses on a daily wear (BDW; n=8) or continuous wear (BCW; n=8) basis; etafilcon-A contact lenses on a daily disposable regimen (EDW; n=8); and no lenses (controls; n=8). OST was measured continuously five times, for 8s after a blink, following a minimum of 2h wear and immediately following lens removal. Absolute temperature, changes in temperature post-blink and the dynamics of temperature changes were calculated. RESULTS: OST immediately following contact lens wear was significantly greater compared to non-lens wearers (37.1 +/- 1.7 degrees C versus 35.0 +/- 1.1 degrees C; p < 0.005), predominantly in the LCW group (38.6 +/- 1.0 degrees C; p < 0.0001). Lens surface temperature was highly correlated (r=0.97) to, but lower than OST (by -0.62 +/- 0.3 degrees C). There was no difference with modality of wear (DW 37.5 +/- 1.6 degrees C versus CW 37.8+/-1.9 degrees C; p=0.63), but significant differences were found between etafilcon A and silicone hydrogel lens materials (35.3 +/- 1.1 degrees C versus 37.5 +/- 1.5 degrees C; p < 0.0005). Ocular surface cooling following a blink was not significantly affected by contact lens wear with (p=0.07) or without (p=0.47) lenses in situ. CONCLUSIONS: Ocular surface temperature is greater with hydrogel and greater still with silicone hydrogel contact lenses in situ, regardless of modality of wear. The effect is likely to be due to the thermal transmission properties of a contact lens.
AIM: To determine the dynamic emitted temperature changes of the anterior eye during and immediately after wearing different materials and modalities of soft contact lenses. METHOD: A dynamic, non-contact infrared camera (Thermo-Tracer TH7102MX, NEC San-ei) was used to record the ocular surface temperature (OST) in 48 subjects (mean age 21.7 +/- 1.9 years) wearing: lotrafilcon-A contact lenses on a daily wear (LDW; n=8) or continuous wear (LCW; n=8) basis; balafilcon-A contact lenses on a daily wear (BDW; n=8) or continuous wear (BCW; n=8) basis; etafilcon-A contact lenses on a daily disposable regimen (EDW; n=8); and no lenses (controls; n=8). OST was measured continuously five times, for 8s after a blink, following a minimum of 2h wear and immediately following lens removal. Absolute temperature, changes in temperature post-blink and the dynamics of temperature changes were calculated. RESULTS: OST immediately following contact lens wear was significantly greater compared to non-lens wearers (37.1 +/- 1.7 degrees C versus 35.0 +/- 1.1 degrees C; p < 0.005), predominantly in the LCW group (38.6 +/- 1.0 degrees C; p < 0.0001). Lens surface temperature was highly correlated (r=0.97) to, but lower than OST (by -0.62 +/- 0.3 degrees C). There was no difference with modality of wear (DW 37.5 +/- 1.6 degrees C versus CW 37.8+/-1.9 degrees C; p=0.63), but significant differences were found between etafilcon A and silicone hydrogel lens materials (35.3 +/- 1.1 degrees C versus 37.5 +/- 1.5 degrees C; p < 0.0005). Ocular surface cooling following a blink was not significantly affected by contact lens wear with (p=0.07) or without (p=0.47) lenses in situ. CONCLUSIONS: Ocular surface temperature is greater with hydrogel and greater still with silicone hydrogel contact lenses in situ, regardless of modality of wear. The effect is likely to be due to the thermal transmission properties of a contact lens.
Authors: Fiona Stapleton; Carl Marfurt; Blanka Golebiowski; Mark Rosenblatt; David Bereiter; Carolyn Begley; Darlene Dartt; Juana Gallar; Carlos Belmonte; Pedram Hamrah; Mark Willcox Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: M Pattmöller; J Wang; J Pattmöller; E Zemova; T Eppig; B Seitz; N Szentmáry; A Langenbucher Journal: Ophthalmologe Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 1.059
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