4.1 Article

Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy in Soft Contact Lens Wearers

期刊

OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE
卷 93, 期 8, 页码 943-954

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000919

关键词

lid wiper epitheliopathy; soft contact lenses; contact lens solution; contact lens material; multipurpose solution

资金

  1. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
  2. Alcon
  3. Allergan
  4. Bausch + Lomb
  5. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care
  6. Menicon
  7. CooperVision
  8. Essilor
  9. Sauflon Pharmaceuticals
  10. Ultravision
  11. Advanced Vision Research
  12. AlgiPharma
  13. CIBA Vision
  14. Ocular Dynamics
  15. Oculus
  16. Ocusense
  17. TearScience
  18. Visioneering Technologies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. To evaluate lid wiper epitheliopathy (LWE) in soft contact lens (SCL) wearers on initial presentation and after using various SCL and solution combinations. Methods. LWE was assessed in 253 habitual SCL wearers who attended a screening visit at one of three study sites. LWE was assessed using lissamine green and sodium fluorescein dyes (Korb scale); a final LWE grade was calculated as the averaged LWE grade of the two dyes. Eligible habitual wearers continued into the four study periods, during which they wore one of three SCL types (etafilcon A, galyfilcon A, or senofilcon A) while using each of four care solutions for 10 to 14 days in randomized order. Statistical analyses were performed using linear mixed models, testing for differences in LWE for subject characteristics and between three multipurpose (MPS) test solutions (BioTrue, OPTI-FREE PureMoist, RevitaLens OcuTec) compared to a hydrogen peroxide (Clear Care) control solution. Results. LWE was present in 85% of habitual SCL wearers. LWE was not different for age (p = 0.28), sex (p = 0.99), race (p = 0.34), and comfort (p = 0.38) and not correlated with refractive error (r = 0.07). LWE was lower in habitual senofilcon A wearers (least-squares (LS) mean +/- SE = 0.82 +/- 0.19) compared to wearers of lotrafilcon B (1.34 +/- 0.20; p < 0.02), comfilcon A (1.41 +/- 0.21; p < 0.01), and other (1.18 +/- 0.16; p < 0.03). Two hundred three participants completed all four study solutions with their assigned lens type; LWE was not different between the MPSs compared to the peroxide control solution across lens materials, except for less LWE for BioTrue (0.88 +/- 0.17) versus Clear Care for participants wearing galyfilcon A (1.11 +/- 0.18; p < 0.01). Conclusions. On initial presentation, LWE was present in 85% of habitual wearers and found to be independent of age, sex, race, comfort, and refractive error but dependent on habitual SCL type. There were no clinically meaningful differences in LWE between the MPSs and hydrogen peroxide solution for the three lens types studied.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据