Impact of manufacturing technology and material composition on the clinical performance of hydrogel lenses

Optometry and Vision Science

Volumn 81, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 442-454

  Maldonado Codina, Carole ^a   Efron, Nathan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinical performance; Contact lens; Hydrogel; Manufacture; Polymerization

Indexed keywords

CONTACT LENSES; ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE REFRACTION; OPTOMETERS;

LENS SURFACE DEHYDRATION; LOW CONTRAST VISUAL ACUITY (LCVA); MATERIAL COMPOSITION;

VISION;

GLYCEROL; METHACRYLIC ACID; POLYMACON;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONJUNCTIVAL HYPEREMIA; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORNEA REFLEX; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYDROGEL; MALE; POLYMERIZATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SLIT LAMP; SOFT CONTACT LENS; TEAR FILM; TECHNOLOGY; VISUAL ACUITY; WETTABILITY;

ADULT; CONJUNCTIVAL DISEASES; CONTACT LENSES, HYDROPHILIC; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FEMALE; FOREIGN-BODY REACTION; HUMANS; HYPEREMIA; MALE; MANUFACTURED MATERIALS; MIDDLE AGED; POLYHYDROXYETHYL METHACRYLATE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTHESIS FITTING; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 2942672703     PISSN: 10405488     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.opx.0000135103.94039.40     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Grobe GL 3rd, Valint PL Jr, Ammon DM Jr. Surface chemical structure for soft contact lenses as a function of polymer processing. J Biomed Mater Res 1996;32:45-54.
2. Buchner A, Faul F, Erdfelder E. GPOWER: a priori, post hoc and compromise power analyses for the Macintosh (computer program). Bonn, Germany: Bonn University, 1992.
3. Jones L, Jones D, Houlford M. Clinical comparison of three polyhexanide-preserved multi-purpose contact lens solutions. Contact Lens Ant Eye 1997;20:23-30.
4. Efron N, Morgan PB, Katsara SS. Validation of grading scales for contact lens complications. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2001;21:17-29.
5. Efron N. Efron grading scales for contact lens complications. In: Efron N, ed. Contact Lens Practice. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002:487-9.
6. Guillon JP. Tear film structure and contact lenses. In: Holly F, ed. The Preocular Tear Film in Health, Disease and Contact Lens Wear. Lubbock, TX: Dry Eye Institute, 1986:815-937.
7. Young G, Efron N. Characteristics of the pre-lens tear film during hydrogel contact lens wear. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1991;11:53-8.
8. Cho P, Leung L, Lam A, Choi A. Tear break-up time: clinical procedures and their effects. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1998;18:319-24.
9. Efron N, Brennan NA. The soft contact lens refractometer. Optician 1987;194:29-41.
10. Myers RI, Larsen DW, Tsao M, Castellano C, Becherer LD, Fontana F, Ghormley NR, Meier G. Quantity of protein deposited on hydrogel contact lenses and its relation to visible protein deposits. Optom Vis Sci 1991;68:776-82.
11. Elliott M, Simpson T, Richter D, Fonn D. Repeatability and comparability of automated keratometry: the Nikon NRK- 8000, the Nidek KM-800 and the Bausch and Lomb keratometer. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1998;18:285-93.
12. Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL, Good GW. The reliability and validity of hand-held refractometry water content measures of hydrogel lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2003;80:447-53.
13. Terry RL, Schnider CM, Holden BA, Cornish R, Grant T, Sweeney D, La Hood D, Back A. CCLRU standards for success of daily and extended wear contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1993;70:234-43.
14. Papas EB. The limbal vasculature. Contact Lens Ant Eye 2003;26:71-6.
15. Polse KA. Tear flow under hydrogel contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1979;18:409-13.
16. Cox I. The why and wherefore of soft lens visual performance. Contact Lens Ant Eye 2000;23:3-9.
17. Matas BR, Spencer WH, Hayes TL. Scanning electron microscopy of hydrophilic contact lenses. Arch Ophthalmol 1972;88:287-95.
18. Baguet J, Sommer F, Duc TM. Imaging surfaces of hydrophilic contact lenses with the atomic force microscope. Biomaterials 1993;14:279-84.
19. Hill JF. Clinical comparison of the (polymacon) spin-cast hydrogel contact lens to the (polymacon) lathe-cut hydrogel lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1980;57:523-7.
20. Wachler BS, Phillips CL, Schanzlin DJ, Krueger RR. Comparison of contrast sensitivity in different soft contact lenses and spectacles. CLAO J 1999;25:48-51.
21. Solomon OD, Freeman MI, Boshnick EL, Cannon WM, Dubow BW, Kame RT, Lanier JC Jr, Lopanik RW, Quinn TG, Rigel LE, Sherrill DD, Stiegmeier MJ, Teiche RS, Zigler LG, Mertz GW, Nason RJ. A 3-year prospective study of the clinical performance of daily disposable contact lenses compared with frequent replacement and conventional daily wear contact lenses. CLAO J 1996;22:250-7.
22. Nason RJ, Boshnick EL, Cannon WM, Dubow BW, Freeman MI, Kame RT, Lanier JC Jr, Lopanik RW, Quinn TG Jr, Rigel LE, et al. Multisite comparison of contact lens modalities. Daily disposable wear vs. conventional daily wear in successful contact lens wearers. J Am Optom Assoc 1994;65:774-80.
23. Gellatly KW, Brennan NA, Efron N. Visual decrement with deposit accumulation of HEMA contact lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1988;65:937-41.
24. Morgan PB, Efron N. Trends in UK contact lens prescribing. Optician 2003;225:34-5.
25. Fowler SA, Gaertner KL. Scanning electron microscopy of deposits remaining in soft contact lens polishing marks after cleaning. CLAO J 1990;16:214-8.
26. Minarik L, Rapp J. Protein deposits on individual hydrophilic contact lenses: effects of water and ionicity. CLAO J 1989;15:185-8.
27. Refojo MF, Leong FL. Microscopic determination of the penetration of proteins and polysaccharides on polymer (hydroxyethylmethacrylate) similar hydrogels. J Polymer Sci 1979;66:227-37.
28. Sack RA, Jones B, Antignani A, Libow R, Harvey H. Specificity and biological activity of the protein deposited on the hydrogel surface. Relationship of polymer structure to biofilm formation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1987;28:842-9.
29. Jones L, Evans K, Sariri R, Franklin V, Tighe B. Lipid and protein deposition of N-vinyl pyrrolidone-containing group II and group IV frequent replacement contact lenses. CLAO J 1997;23:122-6.
30. Garrett Q, Chatelier RC, Griesser HJ, Milthorpe BK. Effect of charged groups on the adsorption and penetration of proteins onto and into carboxymethylated poly(HEMA) hydrogels. Biomaterials 1998;19:2175-86.
31. Efron N, Brennan NA, Currie JM, Fitzgerald JP, Hughes MT. Determinants of the initial comfort of hydrogel contact lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1986;63:819-23.
32. Fonn D, Situ P, Simpson T. Hydrogel lens dehydration and subjective comfort and dryness ratings in symptomatic and asymptomatic contact lens wearers. Optom Vis Sci 1999;76:700-4.
33. Guillon JP, Guillon M, Malgouyres S. Corneal desiccation staining with hydrogel lenses: tear film and contact lens factors. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1990;10:343-50.
34. Faber E, Golding TR, Lowe R, Brennan NA. Effect of hydrogel lens wear on tear film stability. Optom Vis Sci 1991;68:380-4.
35. Cho P, Ng V. Clinical performance of two disposable soft contact lenses of different materials on Hong Kong-Chinese. Contact Lens Ant Eye 2000;23:53-60.
36. Fatt I, Ruben CM. A simple formula for calculating the harmonic average oxygen permeability of an optically powered RGP contact lens. J Br Contact Lens Assoc 1994;17:115-8.
37. Efron N, Morgan PB. Hydrogel contact lens dehydration and oxygen transmissibility. CLAO J 1999;25:148-51.
38. Efron N, Young G. Dehydration of hydrogen contact lenses in vitro and in vivo. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1988;8:253-6.
39. Wechsler S, Johnson MH, Businger U. In vivo hydration of hydrogel lenses - the first hour. ICLC 1983;10:349-52.
40. Brennan NA, Efron N. Hydrogel lens dehydration: a material-dependent phenomenon? Contact Lens Forum 1987;12:28-9.
41. Efron N, Brennan NA, Bruce AS, Duldig DI, Russo NJ. Dehydration of hydrogel lenses under normal wearing conditions. CLAO J 1987;13:152-6.
42. Andrasko G. The amount and time course of soft contact lens dehydration. J Am Optom Assoc 1982;53:207.
43. Morgan PB, Efron N. Hydrogel contact lens ageing. CLAO J 2000;26:85-90.
44. Young G, Holden B, Cooke G. Influence of soft contact lens design on clinical performance. Optom Vis Sci 1993;70:394-403.
45. Brennan NA, Lindsay RG, McCraw K, Young L, Bruce AS, Golding TR. Soft lens movement: temporal characteristics. Optom Vis Sci 1994;71:359-63.
46. Golding TR, Bruce AS, Gaterell LL, Little SA, Macnamara J. Soft lens movement: effect of blink rate on lens settling. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1995;73:506-11.
47. Little SA, Bruce AS. Hydrogel (Acuvue) lens movement is influenced by the postlens tear film. Optom Vis Sci 1994;71:364-70.
48. Martin DK, Holden BA. Variations in tear fluid osmolarity, chord diameter and movement during wear of high water content hydrogel contact lenses. ICLC 1983;10:332-42.
49. Schwallie JD, Bauman RE. Fitting characteristics of Dailies daily disposable hydrogel contact lenses. CLAO J 1998;24:102-6.
50. Janoff LE. The consequence of temperature change on hydrophilic lens base curve in gels of varying water content. ICLC 1982;9:228-32.
51. Lowther GE, Tomlinson A. Critical base curve and diameter interval in the fitting of spherical soft contact lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1981;58:355-60.
52. Kennedy J. Blink-rise and tonicity in soft contact lenses. Contacto 1974;18:5-6.
53. Little SA, Bruce AS. Osmotic determinants of postlens tear film morphology and hydrogel lens movement. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1995;15:117-24.
54. Forst G. Movement and centering of a contact lens on the eye. Contacto 1981;25:6-18.
55. Tomlinson A, Bibby MM. Movement and rotation of soft contact lenses. Effect of fit and lens design. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1980;57:275-9.
56. Cedarstaff TH, Tomlinson A, Bibby M. Validation of a model describing soft lens movement as a function of soft lens specification. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1983b;60:292-296.