Skip to main content
International Journal of Ophthalmology logoLink to International Journal of Ophthalmology
. 2018 Feb 18;11(2):230–234. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2018.02.08

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of therapeutic bandage contact lenses on post-cataract surgery patients

Dan-Na Shi 1, Hang Song 1, Tong Ding 1, Wei-Qiang Qiu 1, Wei Wang 1
PMCID: PMC5824076  PMID: 29487811

Abstract

AIM

To evaluate the safety of therapeutic bandage contact lens for post-cataract surgery patients and to illustrate its efficacy on post-operative comfort and tear-film stability.

METHODS

A total of 40 participants were recruited and randomly divided into two groups. Group one was instructed to wear bandage contact lenses for a week and use antibiotic eye drops for a month since the first day after surgery. Group two received sub-conjunctival injection of tobramycin and was asked to wear eye pads on the first day after surgery and then were instructed to use antibiotic eye drops as the first group did. Ocular surface disease index (OSDI) questionnaire, slit-lamp microscope examination of tear break-up time (TBUT), corneal fluorescein score (CFS), tear meniscus height (TMH) together with anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) and corneal topography were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively.

RESULTS

The subjective feeling (P=0.004), TBUT (P<0.001) and TMH (P=0.02) post-surgery had improved in patients who used bandage contact lenses compared with those who did not at 1wk post-surgery. Until three month postoperatively, the comfort degree (P=0.004) and TMH (P=0.01) of group two were still worse than group one. Moreover, TBUT (P<0.001) and CFS (P=0.004) of the group with eye pads got worse than the results before, whereas the group with bandage contact lenses recovered to normal. None of these patients had infections or other complications.

CONCLUSION

Wearing therapeutic bandage contact lens after cataract surgery, compared with traditional eye-pads, is a safe method to improve tear-film stability and reduce post-operative discomfort without hindering corneal incision recovery.

Keywords: bandage contact lens, cataract surgery, tear-film stability, comfort

INTRODUCTION

Currently it has been a routine practice for patients after cataract surgery to use eye-pads to protect the operated eyes from exposure to external environment until the following day for check-up. This usually leads to inconveniences due to monovision and stereopsis defection; besides, patients have to suffer from the subconjunctival injection of tobramycin, since antibacterial eyedrops could not be used because of the eye-pad. Moreover, the corneal incision related post-surgery discomfort is always complained by patients.

To wear therapeutic bandage contact lenses after surgery could solve the monovision problem caused by eye-pads and enable the patients to use antibacterial eye drops soon after the surgery is finished. They have now been widely used for non-infective ocular diseases[1][2], such as corneal laceration, epithelial defect, bullous keratopathy and dry eye syndrome[3][6]. In most of these cases, they are used to promote corneal recovery and relieve pain during the healing process, since they can enhance epithelial healing and control surface generated pain[7]. Moreover, it can be used as a drug delivery system for its remarkable property in controlling and sustaining ocular drug delivery[8]. However, bandage contact lenses applied after cataract surgery has not been reported before.

However, therapeutic bandage contact lens may cause two problems. The first is that the loss of tear through evaporation while wearing contact lens may result in hyperosmolarity of the tear-film or reduce the protective ability of the mucin layer[9][12]. The other problem is corneal infection, especially bacterial keratitis due to extended and overnight wearing of bandage contact lens[13][14].

The aim of our study is to evaluate the safety of therapeutic bandage contact lens for post cataract surgery patients and to illustrate its effects on subjective feeling and tear film stability.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Patients Data

A cohort of 40 patients aged between 53 and 89y who diagnosed and willing to take cataract surgery at the Department of Ophthalmology of Peking University Third Hospital between July 2017 and September 2017 were recruited and randomly divided into two groups without gender and age bias (Trial Registration Number: ChiCTR-IOC-17012167). Patients with ocular inflammation or other ocular diseases, eye-drops using experiences that can affect ocular surface condition, and those with intraoperative or postoperative complications were excluded. General information of the two groups is delineated in Table 1. Ethics committee approval was obtained from Peking University Third Hospital (Ref. LM2017174), and an informed consent was obtained from all patients before their participation in the study.

Table 1. General patients information.

Group Number of subjects (n) Age (mean±SD) Gender (M/F)
Contact lenses 20 72.16±9.40 9/11
Eye pads 20 74.47±6.44 10/10

Surgical Procedure

Cataract surgeries were successfully carried out by the same surgeon who used identical methods for standard phacoemulsification. Under retrobulbar anesthesia, a 3 mm clear corneal incision was made. Anterior chamber was filled with a dispersive viscoelastic substance. After continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis, hydrodissection and hydrodelineation was performed, then a sideport entrance was made. The nucleus was removed by using the “divide and conquer” technique. The cortex was aspirated with coaxial irrigation/aspiration. The capsular bag was filled with a cohesive viscoelastic substance. A foldable monofocal posterior chamber IOL (Nex-Acri, NIDEK, Japan) was implanted in the capsular bag through an injector system. The viscoelastic material was aspirated completely. The entrances were closed with stromal hydration. At the end of the surgery, patients of group one were instructed to wear therapeutic silicone hydrogel bandage contact lenses (Bausch&Lomb Pure Vision, balafilcon A, NewYork, USA) for a week and use antibiotic eye drops for a month since the first day after surgery. The subjects of group two received sub-conjunctival injection of tobramycin and were asked to wear eye pads for the first day of surgery. Then levofloxacin (Santen, Osaka, Japan), prednisolone (Allergan, Irvine, CA, USA) and pranoprofen (Senju, Osaka, Japan) eye drops were used four times per day for one week and were then gradually reduced in both groups.

Examinations Procedure

Participants' symptoms were evaluated with a validated Chinese translation of the ocular surface disease index (OSDI) questionnaire before, one week, one month, and three months after the cataract surgery to evaluate post-surgery subjective feelings. We divided the questionnaire into three parts, including ocular discomfort, visual function and environmental triggers and subscale scores were measured and computed in a similar manner[15].

Slit-lamp microscope examination of post-surgery inflammation was carried out one day and one week after the surgery. Inflammation scores were calculated by adding up all inflammatory index in Table 2, in which higher scores represented greater degree of inflammation[16]. Tear meniscus height (TMH), corneal fluorescein score (CFS), and tear break-up time (TBUT) were employed at the same time as OSDI. With a paper ruler, TMH was measured at the sites where the slit-lamp beam projected on the cornea and the inferior palpebral margin. CFS was performed in a conventional manner and evaluated by van Bijsterveld score[17] and at the same time, the same observer recorded the results of TBUT for each patient. Finally, the anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Germany) and Pentacam corneal topography (OCULUS, Holladay module, Germany) were conducted to evaluate the corneal excision recovery in terms of corneal thickness and astigmatism.

Table 2. Grading of ocular inflammation.

Symptom None (0 score) Mild (1 score) Moderate (2 score) Severe (3 score) Extreme severe (4 score)
Secretion No Little bit Awake Most time All day
Bulbar conjunctiva hyperemia No Little bit Scatter hyperemia Most hyperemia Cannot see sclera
Ciliary hyperemia No Width<2 mm 2 mm<Width<3 mm Width>3 mm Reach fornix
Corneal edema No Mild Iris clear Iris blur Cannot see iris
Tyndall effect No Mild Iris and lens clear Iris and lens blur Exudate
Keratic precipitates (KP) No <3 4-10 >10, countable Uncountable

Data Analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (version 23.0, SPSS, Inc., USA). Data of the corneal examinations were analyzed with independent sample t-test for comparisons between the two groups and One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for comparisons between the data before and after surgery. Data of the OSDI questionnaire and slit-lamp microscope examinations were analyzed with nonparametric test. All data are presented in a form of means±standard deviations (SD). Statistically significance was set at P<0.05.

RESULTS

Questionnaires

As shown in Table 3, at one week after surgery, most patients in the second group experienced post-operative discomforts such as foreign-body sensation and ocular discomfort scores increased greatly than before (P=0.001). However, patients who wore bandage contact lens did not demonstrate severe post-surgery ocular discomfort after surgery, with the total score of ocular discomfort significantly lower than the second group (P=0.004). The visual function scores decreased and the environmental trigger scores increased in both groups after surgery, with no statistical significantly difference between the two groups.

Table 3. OSDI (Ocular discomfort) before and 1wk, 1 and 3mo after cataract surgery.

Group Before 1wk 1mo 3mo
Contact lenses 18.86±13.56 17.99±18.69 19.58±15.51 10.06±5.42
Eye pads 15.00±7.18 34.44±11.73 25.63±13.79 16.25±7.30
P 0.47 0.004 0.01 0.004

OSOI: Ocular surface disease index.

mean±SD

At one month after surgery, the ocular discomfort scores in both groups increased compared with those before surgery, still with a significant difference between the two groups (P=0.01). However, there is no significant difference between two groups in environmental trigger scores (P=0.12).

At three month post-surgery, the ocular comfort in the first group was better than that before the surgery, still marking a significant difference with group two (P=0.004). The environmental trigger scores in both group reduced to those before the surgery with not much difference (P=0.11).

Slit-lamp Microscope Examination

None of the patients experienced any severe side effects necessitating the cessation of the contact lens. Neither group showed any difference in inflammation scores at one day and one week after the cataract surgery (P>0.05), as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Inflammation scores at 1d and 1wk after surgery.

Group n 1d 1wk
Contact lenses 20 3.47±1.43 0.47±0.77
Eye pads 20 3.87±1.55 0.33±0.62
P 0.41 0.66

mean±SD

As shown in Table 5, at one week after surgery, TBUT in patients with eye pads increased significantly while the other group slightly decreased compared with that before surgery, marking an obvious difference between the two groups (P<0.001). At one month after surgery, TBUT in the group with eye pads got worse (P=0.04) whereas not much change in the group with bandage contact lenses (P=0.58), showing no significant differences between the two groups (P=0.61). At three month after surgery, the TBUT in the second group did not recovered to normal level (P<0.001), however, not much difference with the first group (P=0.43).

Table 5. TBUT before and 1wk, 1 and 3mo after surgery.

Group n Before 1wk 1mo 3mo
Contact lenses 20 2.75±1.10 5.37±1.98 2.47±1.39 2.63±0.87
Eye pads 20 3.27±1.09 2.73±1.39 2.20±1.32 2.93±0.82
P 0.03 <0.001 0.61 0.43

TBUT: Tear break-up time.

mean±SD

The CFS score increased significantly in the group with eye pads one week post-surgery (P<0.001). At one month post-surgery, the score of both groups increased to a peak value, which then decreased at three month after surgery. However, the corneal staining of the group with eye pads was still worse than that before surgery (P=0.004). Both groups did not show much difference during the observation period (P>0.05).

During the observational period, the trend of TMH shown in Table 6 was nearly the same as that of TBUT. At one week after cataract surgery, TMH in patients who wore bandage contact lens were higher than that before surgery but decreased in patients who wore eye pads, which showed a significant difference between the two groups (P=0.02). At one month after cataract surgery, TMH in patients who wore eye pads continued to decrease (P=0.05), making a statistic difference with patients with bandage contact lenses (P<0.001). At three month post-surgery, there was still an obvious distinction in TMH between the two groups (P=0.01).

Table 6. TMH before and 1wk, 1, and 3mo after surgery.

Group n Before 1wk 1mo 3mo
Contact lenses 20 0.26±0.10 0.36±0.10 0.24±0.08 0.31±0.09
Eye pads 20 0.31±0.13 0.25±0.16 0.17±0.12 0.26±0.08
P 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.01

TMH: Tear meniscus height.

mean±SD

Corneal Incision Recovery

The corneal thickness of both the central and the incision locations of the two groups increased at 1wk post-surgery (P<0.001) then recovered to normal, which did not show any significant difference between each other (P>0.05). And the astigmatism showed the same trend as the corneal thickness without evident difference in the two groups (P>0.05) at 1wk and 1mo post-surgery.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we investigated the safety of the therapeutic bandage contact lens for post-cataract surgery patients by slit-lamp observation of anterior segment inflammation and lens-related complications. In previous studies, there have been reports showing that contact lens wearing might increase the infection risk on cornea[14]. Cataract surgery generated two incisions might even worsen the outcome. However, results in this research indicated that therapeutic bandage contact lens combined with antibacterial eye drops did not show much different inflammation or infection compared with the traditional post-operative antibacterial treatments. This may be accounted by the hyper-oxygen transmissible materials, which ensures safer bandage contact lens wearing without bringing any bacterial adhesion or risk for infectious keratitis[18][19]. Besides, bandage contact lenses can be used as transport model to deliver eye drop with higher bioavailability and can control and sustain drug delivery, increasing effectiveness of the antibacterial eye drops[20][21].

We used OSDI questionnaire and slit-lamp microscope examination to evaluate the ocular surface environment and tear-film stability before and after cataract surgery with both subjective and objective index. Patients usually undergo different extents of discomfort after cataract surgery due to corneal incision and post-operative dry eye, such as grittiness and foreign body sensation. The difference of ocular discomfort score in OSDI questionnaire between the two groups in the three-month observation period indicated that therapeutic bandage contact lenses could be used to cover the epithelial nerves to control post-operative pain and effectively reduce the dry eye symptom related discomfort until three month post-surgery[22]. Thus, an introduction of the bandage contact lens would be a feasible way to control the operation-related discomfort.

Previous studies have recognized that cataract surgery is closely related to dry eye syndrome[15]. There are many factors that might affect the ocular surface environment weakening eye protective function and tear-film stability, such as preservative in post-surgery eye drops, corneal nerve transection, elevation of inflammatory factors, goblet cell loss and meibomian gland dysfunction[23][25]. This could explain why both groups in our study have demonstrated a remarkable deterioration on the subjective feeling related to dry-eye at one month after cataract surgery, which was reflected in the OSDI score. Compared with the group with eye pads, both TBUT and TMH greatly improved in patients who wore bandage contact lens at one week, indicating a more stable tear-film function with the help of the hyper-oxygen transmissible lens. Another evidence is that TMH, TBUT, and CFS of the group with eye pads got worse at three month post-surgery than the results before, whereas the group with bandage contact lenses recovered to normal. This can be explained by relevant studies about the relationship between contact lens and tear-film, which proved that silicone hydrogel lenses expand the single spot tear-film laterally across the contact lens, thus stabilizing the tear-film[10][11],[26]. And a number of laboratory studies have found significantly less protein deposition on silicone hydrogel lenses, a characteristic that may also increase wettability and decrease friction[27][28].

The relationship between corneal incision recovery and therapeutic bandage contact lenses was examined in this study, and using therapeutic bandage contact lens post-operatively would protect the cornea from exposing to irritation caused by the incision recovery process and external environment[29][30]. Because the material of silicone hydrogel contact lens has the property of high-oxygen transmissibility, it would promote the epithelial cell reproduction, which enhances corneal wound recovery[31]. AS-OCT was used to measure the thickness of the corneal incision location and incision related astigmatism could be measured by corneal topography[32]. However, neither of the groups showed any significant differences, indicating that contact lenses caused neither obvious improvement nor deterioration on corneal excision recovery. It could be that the improvement in the epithelial healing was so trivial that it could not be discovered by the examinations we chose, therefore more specialized examination for corneal recovery could be implemented in future studies, such as corneal confocal microscopy to evaluate the incision-related structural or morphological changes on different cross sections from a micro level[33].

Our study could be further improved from several aspects. It has been reported that bandage contact lenses with high oxygen transmissibility materials can ensure wearing for up to 30d without causing any side effects[30],[34]. Considering this feature, further studies could focus on extending wearing of the therapeutic bandage contact lenses post-surgery. With drug-delivery system implemented in different manners[8],[21],[35], post-operative antibiotic eye drops could be delivered into the eyes with certain concentration and frequency. As a result, patients could be saved from using different post-operative eye drops themselves, which is usually a challenging job, especially for the elderly.

In conclusion, wearing therapeutic bandage contact lens reduces post-surgery discomfort and eye-pads related inconveniences, stabilizes the tear-film and ocular surface and exhibits no severe harmful consequences related to post-surgery inflammation, infection or postponement of the incision recovery.

Acknowledgments

Conflicts of Interest: Shi DN, None; Song H, None; Ding T, None; Qiu WQ, None; Wang W, None.

Foundations: Supported by the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, People's Republic and Capital Clinical Characteristic Application Research Project (No. Z151100004015073).

REFERENCES

  • 1.Karlgard CC, Jones LW, Moresoli C. Survey of bandage lens use in North America, October-December 2002. Eye Contact Lens. 2004;30(1):25–30. doi: 10.1097/01.ICL.0000105564.71700.EE. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Razmjoo H, Abdi E, Atashkadi S, Reza AM, Reza PA, Akbari M. Comparative study of two silicone hydrogel contact lenses used as bandage contact lenses after photorefractive keratectomy. Int J Prev Med. 2012;3(10):718–722. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dumbleton K, Keir N, Moezzi A, Feng Y, Jones L, Fonn D. Objective and subjective responses in patients refitted to daily-wear silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83(10):758–768. doi: 10.1097/01.opx.0000237547.35542.b8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Schfer JM. A characterization of dryness symptoms with silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Ohio: The Ohio State of University; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chalmers R, Long B, Dillehay S, Begley C. Improving contact-lens related dryness symptoms with silicone hydrogel lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85(8):778–784. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e318181a90d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Veys J. A new silicone hydrogel lens for contact lens-related dryness, Part 1: Material properties. Optician. 2005;229:39–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kanpolat A, Uçakhan OO. Therapeutic use of focus night & day contact lenses. Cornea. 2003;22(8):726–734. doi: 10.1097/00003226-200311000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dixon P, Shafor C, Gause S, Hsu KH, Powell KC, Chauhan A. Therapeutic contact lenses: a patent review. Expert Opin Ther Pat. 2015;25(10):1117–1129. doi: 10.1517/13543776.2015.1057501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gordon GM, Moradshahi N, Jeong S, Lane C, Fini ME. A novel mechanism of increased infections in contact lens wearers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(12):9188–9194. doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-7658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Thai LC, Tomlinson A, Doane MG. Effect of contact lens materials on tear physiology. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81(3):194–204. doi: 10.1097/00006324-200403000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Efron N, Brennan NA, Bright FV, Glasgow BJ, Jones LW, Sullivan DA, Tomlinson A, Zhang J. 2. Contact lens care and ocular surface homeostasis. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2013;36(Suppl 1):S9–S13. doi: 10.1016/S1367-0484(13)60004-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fonn D, Dumbleton K. Dryness and discomfort with silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2003;29(1 Suppl):S101–S104. doi: 10.1097/00140068-200301001-00028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Liu X, Wang P, Kao AA, Jiang Y, Li Y, Long Q. Bacterial contaminants of bandage contact lenses used after laser subepithelial or photorefractive keratectomy. Eye Contact Lens. 2012;38(4):227–230. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e31824f19dd. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cheng KH, Leung SL, Hoekman HW, Beekhuis WH, Mulder PG, Geerards AJ, Kijlstra A. Incidence of contact-lens-associated microbial keratitis and its related morbidity. Lancet. 1999;354(9174):181–185. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09385-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Li XM, Hu L, Hu J, Wang W. Investigation of dry eye disease and analysis of the pathogenic factors in patientsafter cataract surgery. Cornea. 2007;26(9 Suppl 1):S16–S20. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31812f67ca. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zhao JL, Li XX, Dong DS. Clinical assessment of pranoprofen eyedrops on postoperative inflammation of cataract extraction and non-infection inflammation of the anterior segments of the eye. Chinese Ophthalmic Research. 2000;18(6):560–564. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pflugfelder SC, Tseng SC, Sanabria O, Kell H, Garcia CG, Felix C, Feuer W, Reis BL. Evaluation of subjective assessments and objective diagnostic tests for diagnosing tear-film disorders known to cause ocular irritation. Cornea. 1998;17(1):38–56. doi: 10.1097/00003226-199801000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Poggio EC, Glynn RJ, Schein OD, Seddon JM, Shannon MJ, Scardino VA, Kenyon KR. The incidence of ulcerative keratitis among users of daily-wear and extended-wear soft contact lenses. N Engl J Med. 1989;321(12):779–783. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198909213211202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cavanagh HD, Ladage PM, Li SL, Yamamoto K, Molai M, Ren DH, Petroll WM, Jester JV. Effects of daily and overnight wear of a novel hyper oxygen-transmissible soft contact lens on bacterial binding and corneal epithelium. Ophthalmology. 2002;109(11):1957–1969. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(02)01278-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Xinming L, Yingde C, Lloyd AW, Mikhalovsky SV, Sandeman SR, Howel CA, Liewen L. Polymeric hydrogels for novel contact lens-based ophthalmic drug delivery systems: a review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2008;31(2):57–64. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2007.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Maulvi FA, Soni TG, Shah DO. A review on therapeutic contact lenses for ocular drug delivery. Drug Deliv. 2016;23(8):3017–3026. doi: 10.3109/10717544.2016.1138342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Golebiowski B, Papas EB, Stapleton F. Corneal and conjunctival sensory function: the impact on ocular surface sensitivity of change from low to high oxygen transmissibility contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(3):1177–1181. doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-8416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Khanal S, Tomlinson A, Esakowitz L, Bhatt P, Jones D, Nabili S, Mukerji S. Changes in corneal sensitivity and tear physiology after phacoemulsification. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2008;28(2):127–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00539.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Han KE, Yoon SC, Ahn JM, Nam SM, Stulting RD, Kim EK, Seo KY. Evaluation of dry eye and meibomian gland dysfunction after cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(6):1144–1150.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.02.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sutu C, Fukuoka H, Afshari NA. Mechanisms and management of dry eye in cataract surgery patients. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2016;27(1):24–30. doi: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Fonn D. Targeting contact lens induced dryness and discomfort: what properties will make lenses morecomfortable. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84(4):279–285. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31804636af. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Senchyna M, Jones L, Louie D, May C, Forbes I, Glasier MA. Quantitative and conformational characterization of lysozyme deposited on balafilcon and etafilcon contact lens materials. Curr Eye Res. 2004;28(1):25–36. doi: 10.1076/ceyr.28.1.25.23496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Dumbleton K. Noninflammatory silicone hydrogel contact lens complications. Eye Contact Lens. 2003;29(1Suppl):S186–S189. doi: 10.1097/00140068-200301001-00051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Blackmore SJ. The use of contact lenses in the treatment of persistent epithelial defects. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2010;33(5):239–244. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2010.06.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Engle AT, Laurent JM, Schallhorn SC, Toman SD, Newacheck JS, Tanzer DJ, Tidwell JL. Masked comparison of silicone hydrogel lotrafilcon A and etafilcon A extended-wear bandage contact lenses after photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(4):681–686. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.09.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Plaka A, Grentzelos MA, Astyrakakis NI, Kymionis GD, Pallikaris IG, Plainis S. Efficacy of two silicone-hydrogel contact lenses for bandage use after photorefractive keratectomy. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2013;36(5):243–246. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2013.02.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ersan I, Arikan S, Kara S, Gencer B, Koklu A, Tufan HA. Non-invasive assessment of corneal and conjunctival deterioration in soft contact lens users using anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Clin Exp Optom. 2016;99(6):564–567. doi: 10.1111/cxo.12363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Patel DV, McGhee CN. Contemporary in vivo confocal microscopy of the living human cornea using white light and laser scanning techniques: a major review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007;35(1):71–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2007.01423.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Donshik P, Long B, Dillehay SM, Bergenske P, Barr JT, Secor G, Yoakum J, Chalmers RL. Inflammatory and mechanical complications associated with 3y of up to 30 nights of continuous wear of lotrafilcon A silicone hydrogel lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2007;33(4):191–195. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e31802cc275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hsu KH, Carbia BE, Plummer C, Chauhan A. Dual drug delivery from vitamin E loaded contact lenses for glaucoma therapy. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2015;94:312–321. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2015.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Ophthalmology are provided here courtesy of Press of International Journal of Ophthalmology

RESOURCES