4.2 Article

Ocular discomfort at the initial wearing of rigid gas permeable contact lenses

Journal

JAPANESE JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 4, Pages 376-379

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10384-004-0082-y

Keywords

adaptation time for contact lens; initial wearing of contact lens; ocular discomfort with contact lens wear; rigid gas permeable contact lens; visual analogue scale

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To evaluate the relationship between ocular discomfort in the initial wearing of rigid gas permeable contact lenses (RGPCL) and the time required to adapt to RGPCL as measured by using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Methods: RGPCL were prescribed for 89 patients (178 eyes) with myopia or myopic astigmatism and no history of wearing contact lenses. The patients who stopped wearing RGPCL after 1. week because of ocular discomfort were defined as dropouts, and those who adapted to regular full-time RGPCL wear were defined as successful wearers. VAS scores were measured at several intervals for I month after the initial wearing of the lenses. The number of days required to adapt to wearing RGPCL was defined as the adaptation time. Results: Four patients were dropouts due to ocular discomfort (eight eyes; 4.5%). VAS scores were significantly lower in successful wearers than in dropouts at 1 week, although their VAS scores were not different at 1 day. VAS scores of the successful wearers at 1 week were significantly lower than those at I day. The average time required to adapt to RGPCL was 23.0 +/- 22.1 days for the 85 successful wearers. Lower VAS scores at 1 day or 1 week were significantly correlated with a shorter adaptation time in the successful RGPCL wearers. Conclusions: Our results indicate that the VAS score might be useful for predicting successful RGPCL use and the adaptation time required by successful wearers. (C) Japanese Ophthalmological Society 2004.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available