Comfort and adaptation to silicone hydrogel lenses for daily wear

Eye and Contact Lens

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 215-223

  Dumbleton, Kathryn A ^a   Woods, Craig A ^a   Jones, Lyndon W ^a   Fonn, Desmond ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Adaptation; Comfort; Contact lens; Daily wear; Data; Hand held computers; Methods; Research; Silicone hydrogel

Indexed keywords

2 HYDROXYETHYL METHACRYLATE; OXYGEN; SILICONE GEL; SILICONE DERIVATIVE;

ADAPTATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; BURN; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DRY EYE; EYE DISCOMFORT; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYDROGEL; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION; OXYGEN TRANSPORT; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SOFT CONTACT LENS; WIRELESS COMMUNICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HYDROPHILIC CONTACT LENS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTHESIS; REFRACTION ERROR; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; VISUAL ADAPTATION;

ADAPTATION, OCULAR; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONTACT LENSES, HYDROPHILIC; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYDROGEL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FITTING; REFRACTIVE ERRORS; SILICONES; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 58149109597     PISSN: 15422321     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e31816499dc     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Morgan PB, Woods CA, Jones D, et al. International contact lens prescribing in 2006. Cont Lens Spect 2006;22:34-38.
2. Woods CA, Jones DA, Jones LW, et al. A seven year survey of the contact lens prescribing habits of Canadian optometrists. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:505-510.
3. Tighe B. Contact lens materials. In: Phillips AJ, Speedwell S, eds. Contact Lenses. Butterworth Heinemann, 2007, 59-78.
4. Brennan NA, Coles ML, Ang JH. An evaluation of silicone-hydrogel lenses worn on a daily wear basis. Clin Exp Optom 2006;89:18-25.
5. Dillehay SM. Does the level of available oxygen impact comfort in contact lens wear? A review of the literature. Eye Contact Lens 2007;33:148-155.
6. Dumbleton KA, Chalmers RL, McNally J, et al. Effect of lens base curve on subjective comfort and assessment of fit with silicone hydrogel continuous wear contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2002;79:633-637.
7. Fonn D, Dumbleton K. Dryness and discomfort with silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2003;29:S101-S104.
8. Young G, Riley CM, Chalmers RL, et al. Hydrogel lens comfort in challenging environments and the effect of refitting with silicone hydrogel lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:302-308.
9. Efron N, Brennan NA, Currie JM, et al. Determinants of the initial comfort of hydrogel contact lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1986;63:819-823.
10. McMonnies CW. The critical initial comfort of soft contact lenses. Clin Exp Optom 1997;80:53-58.
11. Cheung SW, Cho P, Chan B, et al. A comparative study of biweekly disposable contact lenses: Silicone hydrogel versus hydrogel. Clin Exp Optom 2007;90:124-131.
12. Dumbleton K, Keir N, Moezzi A, et al. Objective and subjective responses in patients refitted to daily-wear silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2006;83:758-768.
13. Guillon M, Maissa C. Use of silicone hydrogel material for daily wear. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2007;30:5-10.
14. Long B, McNally J. The clinical performance of a silicone hydrogel lens for daily wear in an Asian population. Eye Contact Lens 2006;32:65-71.
15. 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;76:700-704.
16. Fonn D. Targeting contact lens induced dryness and discomfort: what properties will make lenses more comfortable. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:279-285.
17. Pritchard N, Fonn D. Dehydration, lens movement and dryness ratings of hydrogel contact lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1995;15:281-286.
18. Jamison RN, Gracely RH, Raymond SA, et al. Comparative study of electronic vs. paper VAS ratings: A randomized, crossover trial using healthy volunteers. Pain 2002;99:341-347.
19. Cole E, Pisano ED, Clary GJ, et al. A comparative study of mobile electronic data entry systems for clinical trials data collection. Int J Med Inform 2006;75:722-729.
20. Papas EB, Schultz BL. Repeatability and comparison of visual analogue and numerical rating scales in the assessment of visual quality. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1997;17:492-498.
21. Chalmers RL, Begley CG, Edrington T, et al. The agreement between self-assessment and clinician assessment of dry eye severity. Cornea 2005;24:804-810.
22. Doughty MJ, Fonn D, Richter D, et al. A patient questionnaire approach to estimating the prevalence of dry eye symptoms in patients presenting to optometric practices across Canada. Optom Vis Sci 1997;74:624-631.
23. Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL, Nichols KK, et al. The performance of the contact lens dry eye questionnaire as a screening survey for contact lens-related dry eye. Cornea 2002;21:469-475.
24. Nichols JJ, Ziegler C, Mitchell GL, et al. Self-reported dry eye disease across refractive modalities. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:1911-1914.
25. Riley C, Young G, Chalmers R. Prevalence of ocular surface symptoms, signs, and uncomfortable hours of wear in contact lens wearers: the effect of refitting with daily-wear silicone hydrogel lenses (senofilcon a). Eye Contact Lens 2006;32:281-286.