The critical initial comfort of soft contact lenses

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

Volumn 80, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 53-58

  McMonnies, Charles W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Corneal innervation; Lens comfort; Lens insertion; Lens settling; Soft lens

Indexed keywords

EID: 2142835594     PISSN: 08164622     EISSN: 14440938     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.1997.tb04851.x     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Hanks AJ. Proactive versus reactive contact lens discussion. Cont Lens Spectrum 1991; 6: 25–27.
2. Jones L, Jones D, Langley C, Houlford M. Reactive or proactive contact lens fitting— does it make a difference J Brit Cont Lens Ass 1996; 19: 41–43.
3. Morgan SL, Efron N. The benefits of a proactive approach to contact lens fitting. J Brit Cont Lens Ass 1996; 19: 97–101.
4. Efron N, Brennan NA, Currie JM, Fitzgerald JP, Hughes MX. Determinants of the initial comfort of hydrogel contact lenses. Amer J Optom Physiol Optics 1986; 63: 819–823.
5. Gasson A. Soft (hydrogel) lens fitting. Chapter 11 in Phillips AJ, Stone J. eds. Contact Lenses 3rd ed. London: Butterworths, 1989: 406.
6. Weisbarth RE, Ghormley NR. Hydrogel lens care regimens and patient education. Chapter 34 in Bennet ES, Weissman BA. eds. Clinical Contact Lens Practice. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Co, 1991: 15.
7. Draeger J. Corneal sensitivity: measurement and clinical importance. Vienna: Springer-Verlag, 1984.
8. Martin XY, Safran AB. Corneal hypoesthesia. Surv Ophthalmol 1988; 33: 28.
9. O'Leary DJ. Innervation. Chapter 10 in Bennet ES, Weissman BA. Clinical Contact Lens Practice. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Co, 1991.