Evaluation of Rinsing Options for Rigid Gas Permeable Contact Lenses.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the efficacy of various saline solutions as alternative methods to rinsing rigid gas permeable (RGP) lenses with tap water. METHODS: The exiting fluid pressure of five commercially available saline solutions was measured using a venous pressure transducer system. Rigid gas permeable lenses were cleaned with one of two commercially available cleaners and then rinsed with one of five saline solutions or with tap water. High-resolution imaging was performed after each rinse, and light transmission through the lens surface was determined by measuring the mean pixel count within a 1 mm by 1 mm square. RESULTS: The mean pixels/mm 2 and the rinsing method were correlated (Spearman rank order correlation, P <0.0001), that is, high pixel counts represented more lens surface deposits and residue, and as fluid pressure of the rinsing methods increased, mean pixels/mm 2 decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Measured fluid pressure relates to lens surface opacity suggesting that some products leave less residue than others. In addition, tap water, with its high exiting fluid pressure, seems to be the most effective option for removal of RGP cleaners from the contact lens surface. Despite these findings, tap water rinse is not encouraged because of its potential to lead to corneal inflammation and infection; therefore, the development of alternative procedures and products is needed.

Gas-Permeable Contact Lenses and Water Exposure: Practices and Perceptions.

SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides insight into the current recommendations, clinical behaviors, and risk assessments of eye care professionals on the topic of rigid contact lens exposure to tap water. This knowledge may motivate professional organizations to develop initiatives to educate eye care professionals on the dangers of contact lens exposure to water. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the practice patterns and risk perceptions of eye care professionals regarding gas-permeable contact lens exposure to tap water. METHODS: A branched-logic survey was started by 320 clinicians, vision scientists, and industry personnel and was fully completed by 272 participants. The survey queried participants about their current practices, recommendations, and perceptions of risk regarding exposure of gas-permeable contact lenses to tap water. RESULTS: Of those who prescribe gas-permeable contact lenses, 57.4% reported rinsing lenses with tap water, whereas only 32.7% reported engaging in this same behavior in front of patients. Of those who reported never rinsing lenses with tap water, 85.6% indicated that rinsing lenses with water increases infection risk, whereas 52.1% of those who rinse lenses with water reported the same perceived risk (P < .001). Of all participants, 60% indicated that wearing contact lenses while showering increases infection risk, and 50.2% of all participants advised patients to avoid this behavior. CONCLUSIONS: A discrepancy exists between perceptions of risk concerning exposure of contact lenses to water and both clinical practices and patient education provided by professionals.

Contact Lens Adaption in Neophytes.

SIGNIFICANCE: Clinicians commonly either recommend patients begin contact lens (CL) wear full time or suggest that patients should gradually increase their wear times during the first few days of wear. This study found no differences between these two wear schedules, suggesting that patient preference may be the best schedule. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if there are any clinical differences in neophyte, 2-week, reusable soft CL wearers who were randomized to either a full-time or a gradually increasing wear time schedule. METHODS: This was an investigator-masked, three-visit, randomized, clinical trial. Participants were randomized to wear their CLs full time starting on the first day or gradually starting with 2 hours of wear on the first day and increasing wear by 2 hours each day until 8 hours or more of wear per day was achieved. Symptoms (Ocular Surface Disease Index and visual analog scale) and ocular surface signs (tear breakup time, extent of corneal staining, and Schirmer test I) were evaluated at each visit. RESULTS: A total of 25 participants were randomized, with 21 participants completing at least 1 week of follow-up. Completed participants had a mean ± standard deviation age of 23.5 ± 3.0 years, and 48% were female. No significant between-group differences were found when comparing the full-time and gradual wear time schedule groups at 2 weeks (all, P > .32): Ocular Surface Disease Index (10.8 ± 8.5 vs. 16.3 ± 18.8), visual analog scale (89.0 ± 9.7 vs. 81.8 ± 18.7), tear breakup time (11.7 ± 7.0 vs. 9.8 ± 2.7), extent of corneal staining (0.0 ± 0.1 vs. 0.3 ± 0.5), or Schirmer test I (15.9 ± 8.8 vs. 21.2 ± 12.5). CONCLUSIONS: No between-group differences were found for any metric evaluated, which suggests that the best wear schedule may be the one that best suits the neophyte CL wearer's lifestyle.

Epidemiology of contact lens-induced infiltrates: an updated review.

Corneal infiltrative events (CIEs) are well established as a risk associated with soft contact lens wear. The incidence of symptomatic CIEs during extended soft lens wear ranges from 2.5 to six per cent; when asymptomatic CIEs are included, the incidence can be as high as 20-25 per cent. In daily soft lens wear, the annual incidence of symptomatic CIEs is about three per cent. There are various accepted methods of categorising CIEs, and a scoring system based on clinical signs and symptoms is a good approach to grade severity. Lens-related risk factors include extended wear, silicone hydrogel material, the use of multipurpose solutions, bacterial bioburden and reusable lenses. Recent studies report that daily disposable lenses reduce the risk of CIEs.