Contact Lens & Anterior Eye
Volume 29, Issue 3 , Pages 143-151 , July 2006

Clinical evaluation of a new multi-purpose disinfecting solution in symptomatic contact lens wearers

References 

  1. Silbert JA. Comfort, convenience and acuity. Understanding factors leading to contact lens success. Supp to CL Spectrum; September 1996.
  2. Young G, Veys J, Pritchard N, Coleman S. A multi-centre study of lapsed contact lens wearers. Ophthal Physiol Opt. 2002;22:516–527
  3. Briggs ST. Profile of contact lens failures in Saudi Arabia. Clin Exp Optom. 1996;79:255–259
  4. Pritchard N, Fonn D, Brazeau D. Discontinuation of contact lens wear: a survey. ICLC. 1999;26:157–162
  5. Schlanger JL. A study of contact lens failures. J Am Optom Assoc. 1993;64:220–224
  6. Weed KH, Fonn D, Potvin R. Discontinuation of contact lens wear. Optom Vis Sci. 1993;70(12s):140
  7. Covey M, Munro F. Differential diagnosis in contact lens aftercare. Part 3. Ocular discomfort. Optician. 1999;217(5700):26–32
  8. Nason RJ, Boshnik EL, Cannon WM, et al. Multi-site comparison of contact lens modalities. Daily disposable wear vs. conventional daily wear in successful contact lens wearers. J Am Optom Assoc. 1994;65:774–780
  9. Efron N, Brennan NA, Currie JM, et al. Determinants of the initial comfort of hydrogel contact lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1986;63:819–823
  10. Lemp MA, Caffery B, Lebow K, et al. Omafilcon A (Proclear) soft contact lenses in a dry-eye population. CLAO J. 1999;25(1):40–47
  11. Efron N, Brennan N. A survey of wearers of low water content hydrogel contact lenses. Clin Exp Optom. 1988;71(3):86–90
  12. Fonn D, Simpson T. Hydrogel lens dehydration and subjective and dryness ratings in symptomatic and asymptomatic contact lens wearers. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76(10):700–704
  13. Armitage B, Boshnick E, Davis H, et al. Multicenter evaluation of Acuvue disposable contact lenses in plus powers. ICLC. 1990;17:168–172
  14. Hoekel JR, Maydew TO, Bassi CJ, et al. An evaluation of the 8.4 and 8.8mm base curve radii in the Ciba NewVue vs. the Vistakon Acuvue. ICLC. 1994;21:14–17
  15. Pritchard N. How can I avoid CL drop-outs?. Optician. 2001;222(5825):14–18
  16. Riley C, Chalmers RL, Pence N. The impact of lens choice in the relief of contact lens-related symptoms and ocular surface findings. Contact Lens Ant Eye. 2005;28:13–19
  17. Malet F, Karsenti D, Pouliquen P. Preservative-free ocular hydrating agents in symptomatic contact lens wearers: saline versus PVP solution. Eye Contact Lens. 2003;29(1):38–43
  18. Barabino S, Rolando M, Camicione P, et al. Effects of a 0.9% sodium chloride ophthalmic solution on the ocular surface of symptomatic contact lens wearers. Can J Ophthalmol. 2005;40(1):45–50
  19. Epstein AB. Contact lens drop-out: how lens care products and poor communication can sabotage your practice. Review of CLs; July 28–31, 2003.
  20. Jones L, Jones D, Houlford M. Clinical comparison of three polyhexanide-preserved multi-purpose solutions. Contact Lens Ant Eye. 1997;20:23–30
  21. Larsen S, Smith C, Mathis J, et al. Comfort differences between multi-purpose solutions. CL Spectrum. 2002;17(12):40–43
  22. Stiegemeier M, Cedrone R, Evans D, et al. Clinical performance of ‘no rub’ multi-purpose solutions. Cont Lens Ant Eye. 2004;27:65–74
  23. Ketelson HA, Meadows DL, Stone RP. Dynamic wettability properties of a soft contact lens hydrogel. Colloids Surf: Biointerf. 2005;40:1–9
  24. Ketelson HA, Meadows DL, McQueen ND, et al. Enhancing wettability with multi-purpose solutions. Rev Cornea CLs. 2005;1:44–48
  25. Ketelson HA, Meadows DL. Wettability of soft contact lenses: new thoughts about an old problem. Rev CLs. 2004;10:34–38
  26. Garofalo RJ, Dassanayake N, Carey C, et al. Corneal staining and subjective symptoms with multi-purpose solutions as a function of time. Eye Contact Lens. 2005;31(4):166–174
  27. Pritchard N, Young G, Coleman S, et al. Subjective and objective measures of corneal staining related to multi-purpose care systems. Contact Lens Ant Eye. 2003;26:3–9
  28. Lemp MA. Report of the National Eye Institute/Industry Workshop on clinical trials in dry eyes. CLAO J. 1995;21(4):221–232
  29. Lebow KA, Schachet JL. Evaluation of corneal staining and patient preference with use of three multi-purpose solutions and two brands of soft contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2003;29(4):213–220
  30. Minarik MA, Rapp J. Protein deposits on individual hydrophilic contact lenses: effects of water and ionicity. CLAO J. 1989;15:185–188
  31. Minno GE, Eckel L, Groemminger S, et al. Quantitative analysis of protein deposits on hydrophilic soft contact lenses. I. Comparison to visual methods of analysis. II. Deposit variation among FDA lens material groups. Optom Vis Sci. 1991;68:865–872
  32. Myers R, Larsen DW, Tsao M, et al. Quantity of protein deposited on hydrogel contact lenses and its relation to visible protein deposits. Optom Vis Sci. 1991;68:776–782
  33. Tomlinson A, Caroline P. Comparative evaluation of surface deposits on high water content hydrogel contact lens polymers. CLAO J. 1990;16:121–127
  34. Houlford M. Clinical comparison of three polyhexanide-preserved multi-purpose solutions. Contact Lens Ant Eye. 1997;20:23–30
  35. Jones L, MacDougall N, Sorbara GL. Asymptomatic corneal staining associated with the use of balafilcon silicone hydrogel contact lenses disinfected with a polyaminopropyl biguanide-preserved care regimen. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79:753–761

PII: S1367-0484(06)00052-X

doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2006.03.006

Contact Lens & Anterior Eye
Volume 29, Issue 3 , Pages 143-151 , July 2006

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution