Suzanne Efron

Adverse events and discontinuations with rigid and soft hyper Dk contact lenses used for continuous wear.

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to assess the relative clinical success of hypertransmissible rigid and soft contact lenses in terms of the rates of adverse events and clinical discontinuations. Methods. One hundred subjects (50 experienced wearers and 50 neophytes) were fitted with either the Z-alpha lens (Menicon) or the Focus Night & Day lens (CIBA Vision), which were worn on a 30-day continuous wear basis. The rates of adverse events and clinical discontinuations were monitored over 12 months. Results. There were 20 adverse events that were categorized as being serious or significant—four with rigid lenses and 16 with soft lenses (p = 0.003). There was no significant difference between the experienced (10) and the neophyte (10) groups (p = 1.00). There were 23 clinical discontinuations—13 with rigid lenses and 10 with soft lenses (p = 0.46). Fewer experienced wearers (five) discontinued than neophytes (18) (p = 0.002). Conclusions. Practitioners should anticipate fewer adverse events with rigid versus soft lenses prescribed for continuous wear. Experienced wearers are less likely to discontinue compared with neophytes.

Corneal topography and soft contact lens fit.

Purpose. To determine which ocular topography variables affect soft contact lens fit. Methods. Fifty subjects each wore three pairs of soft lenses in random succession (Vistakon Acuvue 2, Vistakon Acuvue Advance, Ciba Vision Night & Day), and various aspects of lens fit were evaluated. The steeper base curves of each type were worn in one eye and the flatter base curves in the other eye. Corneal topography data were collected using a Medmont E300 corneal topographer (Camberwell, Australia). Corneal curvature, shape factor (SF), and corneal height were measured over a 10 mm chord and also over the maximum measurable diameter. These were measured in the horizontal, vertical, steepest, and flattest meridians. Results. With each lens type, the steeper base curve provided the best fit on the greatest proportion of eyes and the significant differences in various aspects of fit were noted between base curves. For each lens type, there was no significant difference in mean K-reading between those eyes best fit with the steeper base curve and those eyes best fit with the flatter base curve. Two of the lenses showed a positive correlation between centration and horizontal corneal height (maximum), whereas one lens showed a negative correlation between centration and horizontal SF (SF = e2). Several lenses showed a positive correlation between post-blink movement and horizontal or vertical corneal SF. Conclusions. The measurement of corneal topography using current Placido disc instrumentation allows a better prediction of soft lens fit than by keratometry, but it is not reliable enough to enable accurate selection of the best fitting base curve. Some correlations are evident between corneal measurements; however, trial fitting remains the method of choice for selection of soft lens base curve.

Optical and visual performance of aspheric soft contact lenses

Purpose. This study was conducted to investigate whether aspheric design soft contact lenses reduce ocular aberrations and result in better visual acuity and subjective appreciation of clinical performance compared with spherical soft contact lenses. Methods. A unilateral, double-masked, randomized and controlled study was undertaken in which ocular aberrations and high and low contrast logMAR visual acuity were measured on myopic subjects who wore aspheric design (Biomedics 55 Evolution, CooperVision) and spherical design (Biomedics 55, CooperVision) soft contact lenses. Ten subjects who had about −2.00 D myopia wore −2.00 D lenses and 10 subjects who had about −5.00 D myopia wore −5.00 D lenses. Measurements were made under photopic and mesopic lighting conditions. Subjects were invited to grade comfort, vision in photopic and mesopic conditions, and overall impression with the two lens types on 100 unit visual analogue scales. Results. There was no significant difference in high contrast or low contrast visual acuity between the two lens designs of either power under photopic or mesopic conditions. Both lens designs displayed lower levels of spherical aberration compared with the “no lens” condition under photopic and mesopic light levels (p < 0.0001); however, there were no differences in aberrations between aspheric and spherical lens designs. There were no statistically significant differences in subjective appreciation of clinical performance between lens designs or lens powers. Conclusions. At least with respect to the brand of lenses tested, the fitting of aspheric design soft contact lenses does not result in superior visual acuity, aberration control, or subjective appreciation compared with equivalent spherical design soft contact lenses.

A ‘cost-per-wear’ model based on contact lens replacement frequency

Purpose:  The aim was to construct and advise on the use of a cost‐per‐wear model based on contact lens replacement frequency, to form an equitable basis for cost comparison.

Inefficacy of Aspheric Soft Contact Lenses for the Correction of Low Levels of Astigmatism

Purpose. The purpose of this article is to compare the visual performance of a toric soft (TS) contact lens (SofLens 66 Toric; Bausch &Lomb, Rochester, NY), an aspheric soft (AS) contact lens (Frequency Aspheric; CooperVision, Fairport, NY) and a spectacle correction (SC) in subjects with low levels of astigmatism. Methods. One eye of 30 subjects with refractive astigmatism of –0.75 DC or –1.00 DC was tested. After pupil dilation, each subject was fitted with all three forms of correction in random order. Subjects were masked from the contact lens type. High-contrast visual acuity (HCVA) and low-contrast visual acuity (LCVA) were recorded for each correction using 2-mm, 4-mm, and 6-mm artificial pupils. Results. With a 2-mm pupil, HCVA was similar for the TS lens and the SC (p = 0.13); better HCVA was demonstrated with the TS lens than with the AS lens (p = 0.001). With 4-mm and 6-mm pupils, HCVA was poorer with the AS lens than with the SC (p < 0.002) and TS lenses (p < 0.0001). The difference in HCVA between the TS and AS lenses was two letters, three letters, and one line with pupil sizes of 2 mm, 4 mm, and 6 mm, respectively. LCVA was similar for the three refractive conditions with the 2-mm pupil size. With 4-mm and 6-mm pupils, LCVA was similar for the TS lens and SC, but better than the AS lens by approximately one line in each case (all p < 0.0001). Conclusions. For small pupil sizes, there is little difference in HCVA and LCVA between various refractive corrections. However, for larger pupils, HCVA and LCVA are superior with TS contact lenses and SC versus AS contact lenses by approximately a half-line or more, which is considered to be clinically significant. Superior vision can be achieved for low astigmatic contact lens wearers using TS rather than AS contact lenses.