These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The clinical performance of lenses disposed of daily can vary considerably.
    Author: Diec J, Lazon de la Jara P, Willcox M, Holden BA.
    Journal: Eye Contact Lens; 2012 Sep; 38(5):313-8. PubMed ID: 22890226.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical performance of three lens types disposed of on a daily disposable (DD) basis. METHOD: A total of 120 participants were randomized into one of three lens types (etafilcon A, narafilcon A, and senofilcon A), all worn bilaterally on a DD regime. Participants were observed at baseline, 2-week, and 1- and 3-month visits where ocular physiology and lens performance variables were collected on a 0 to 4 grading scale in 0.1 increments. Subjective comfort and vision ratings were collected on a 1 to 100 rating scale and in the form of symptom severity. RESULTS: Forty participants wore each lens type with no differences in age or gender between groups (P>0.05). Etafilcon A exhibited more limbal redness compared with either of the other lens types (P<0.01). More superior corneal staining was noted with narafilcon A lenses compared with senofilcon A (P<0.01), and more superior conjunctival indentation was noted for narafilcon A compared with etafilcon A (P=0.001). No differences were found between lenses in the 1 to 100 rating scale (P>0.05). Narafilcon A showed more moderate to severe dryness symptoms and symptoms of blurred vision at lens wearing visits (P<0.05). One bilateral contact lens papillary conjunctivitis, one unilateral superior epithelial arcuate lesion, and one infiltrative keratitis were associated with narafilcon A only. Of the seven discontinuations, six were from the narafilcon A group. CONCLUSION: Different contact lens materials and designs, worn on the same DD modality, elicit different ocular and patient responses. Narafilcon A did not perform clinically as well as etafilcon A and senofilcon A worn on a DD modality.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]