Non-contact laser-scanning confocal microscopy of the human cornea in vivo

PURPOSE To investigate the utility of using non-contact laser-scanning confocal microscopy (NC-LSCM), compared with the more conventional contact laser-scanning confocal microscopy (C-LSCM), for examining corneal substructures in vivo. METHODS An attempt was made to capture representative images from the tear film and all layers of the cornea of a healthy, 35 year old female, using both NC-LSCM and C-LSCM, on separate days. RESULTS Using NC-LSCM, good quality images were obtained of the tear film, stroma, and a section of endothelium, but the corneal depth of the images of these various substructures could not be ascertained. Using C-LSCM, good quality, full-field images were obtained of the epithelium, subbasal nerve plexus, stroma, and endothelium, and the corneal depth of each of the captured images could be ascertained. CONCLUSIONS NC-LSCM may find general use for clinical examination of the tear film, stroma and endothelium, with the caveat that the depth of stromal images cannot be determined when using this technique. This technique also facilitates image capture of oblique sections of multiple corneal layers. The inability to clearly and consistently image thin corneal substructures - such as the tear film, subbasal nerve plexus and endothelium - is a key limitation of NC-LSCM.

The epidemiology of microbial keratitis with silicone hydrogel contact lenses

It was widely anticipated that after the introduction of silicone hydrogel lenses, the risk of microbial keratitis would be lower than with hydrogel lenses because of the reduction in hypoxic effects on the corneal epithelium. Large-scale epidemiological studies have confirmed that the absolute and relative risk of microbial keratitis is unchanged with overnight use of silicone hydrogel materials. The key findings include the following: (1) The risk of infection with 30 nights of silicone hydrogel use is equivalent to 6 nights of hydrogel extended wear; (2) Occasional overnight lens use is associated with a greater risk than daily lens use; (3) The rate of vision loss due to corneal infection with silicone hydrogel contact lenses is similar to that seen in hydrogel lenses; (4) The spectrum of causative organisms is similar to that seen in hydrogel lenses, and the material type does not impact the corneal location of presumed microbial keratitis; and (5) Modifiable risk factors for infection include overnight lens use, the degree of exposure, failing to wash hands before lens handling, and storage case hygiene practice. The lack of change in the absolute risk of disease would suggest that exposure to large number of pathogenic organisms can overcome any advantages obtained from eliminating the hypoxic effects of contact lenses. Epidemiological studies remain important in the assessment of new materials and modalities. Consideration of an early adopter effect with studies involving new materials and modalities and further investigation of the impact of second-generation silicone hydrogel materials is warranted.

Why fit contact lenses? Part 1 - clinical reasons

There are probably two main reasons why some practitioners do not bother fitting contact lenses – that it is not profitable and it is clinically too difficult. Although this article will concentrate on clinical issues rather than questions of profitability, I feel that the belief that contact lens fitting is not as profitable as prescribing spectacles is unfounded.

Book review: 'Contact lenses: The Story', by T. Bowden. Bower House Publications, Kent 2009.

This book had to be written. Congratulations to British dispensing optician Timothy Bowden for his dogged determination in researching, writing and essentially self-publishing this hefty tome. How does one tackle the monumental task of tracking the complex history of the development of the contact lens, from the production of the first human artificial glass eyes by Ludwig Müller-Uri in Germany in 1835 to the sophisticated, high-technology, multi-billion dollar contact lens industry of today? The superficial answer may seem simple: do it chronologically, but it is much more difficult than that. Multiple contemporaneous and seemingly unconnected events often converged to result in ideas that elevated contact lens technology to the next level and many developments revolved around the deliberate and sometimes accidental activities of a long list of enthusiasts, inventors, entrepreneurs, businessmen, technicians, scientists, engineers, polymer scientists, opticians, optometrists and ophthalmologists.

Why fit contact lenses?

Contrary to what many practitioners believe, current generation contact lenses are easy to fit, are well tolerated, provide superior vision, are physiologically compatible with the anterior ocular structures, cause few serious complications and are cost effective. These factors will be explored with examples of advancements that have occurred in contact lens practice over the past two decades. Consideration will also be given to the role of optometrists, the contact lens industry and educational institutions in promoting contact lenses as an alternative form of vision correction.

The changing performance of multifocal contact lenses compared to monovision.

Purpose:Multifocal contact lenses (MCLs) have been available for decades. A review of the literature suggests that while, historically, these lenses have been partially successful, they have struggled to compete with monovision (MV). More recent publications suggest that there has been an improvement in the performance of these lenses. This study set out to investigate whether the apparent improved lens performance reported in the literature is reflected in clinical practice. Methods:Data collected over the last 5yrs via the International Contact Lens Prescribing Survey Consortium was reviewed for patients over the age of 45yrs. The published reports of clinical trials were reviewed to assess lens performance over the time period. Results:Data review was of 16,680 presbyopic lens fits in 38 countries. The results are that 29% were fit with MCLs, 8% MV and 63% single vision (SV). A previous survey conducted in Australia during 1988-89 reported that 9% of presbyopes were fit with MCLs, 29% MV and 63% SV. The results from our survey for Australia alone were 28% (MV 13%) vs 9% (MV 29%) suggesting an increase in usage of MCLs from 1988-89 to 2010. A review of the literature indicates the reported level of visual acuities with MCLs in comparison to MV has remained equivalent over this time period, yet preference has switch from MV to MCLs. Conclusions:There is evidence that currently more MCLs than MV are being fit to presbyopes, compared to 1988-89. This increased use is likely due to the improved visual performance of these lenses, which is not demonstrated with acuity measures but reported by wearers, suggesting that patient-based subjective ratings are currently the best way to measure visual performance.

Automated surface sampling of lipids from worn contact lenses coupled with tandem mass spectrometry

The deposition of biological material (biofouling) onto polymeric contact lenses is thought to be a major contributor to lens discomfort and hence discontinuation of wear. We describe a method to characterize lipid deposits directly from worn contact lenses utilizing liquid extraction surface analysis coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LESA-MS/MS). This technique effected facile and reproducible extraction of lipids from the contact lens surfaces and identified lipid molecular species representing all major classes present in human tear film. Our data show that LESA-MS/MS is a rapid and comprehensive technique for the characterization of lipid-related biofouling on polymer surfaces.

Why are we still fitting reusable soft contact lenses?

Whether the first daily disposable soft contact lens to enter the market in 1994 was the Premier lens (Award Technology, Scotland, UK; subsequently purchased by Bausch & Lomb, Rochester New York, USA) or the 1-Day Acuvue lens (Johnson and Johnson Vision Care, Jacksonville, Florida, USA) has long been a matter of bitter dispute1 but whatever the answer, this year marks the 20th anniversary of the launch of this modality of lens wear...

In response: Changes in ultraviolet transmittance of hydrogel and silicone hydrogel contact lenses induced by wear

We thank Dr Shedden and Dr Pall for their insightful comments and the opportunity to clarify a number of points from our work.1 The “protection factor” (PF) expressed as the inverse of the transmittance of contact lens (CL) material (1/Tλ), where T is the percentage transmittance of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) in a given waveband (UVC, UVB or UVA) of the UV spectrum for contact lenses is the standard method for reporting PF values and as such there should not be any controversy. We have calculated the PF for each wavelength across the entire UV spectrum (UVC, UVB, UVA) as presented in figure 3 of our previous publication.1 In that article, we were simply stating the observation when transmission in the UVC spectra band is considered especially because appreciable amounts of potentially carcinogenic short UV wavelengths was shown to be present in sunlight in our region three decades ago2 and these short wavelength photons are reported to be more biologically damaging to ocular tissues.3 In addition, the depletion of the Ozone layer is still continuing. Nevertheless, we understand the concern of the authors that the results of the PF might be confusing to those who are not familiar with the science of UVR and as such we have made some revisions to the findings of the calculated PF...

Cone location and correction of keratoconus with rigid gas-permeable contact lenses

Purpose To evaluate the influence of cone location and corneal cylinder on RGP corrected visual acuities and residual astigmatism in patients with keratoconus. Methods In this prospective study, 156 eyes from 134 patients were enrolled. Complete ophthalmologic examination including manifest refraction, Best spectacle visual acuity (BSCVA), slit-lamp biomicroscopy was performed and corneal topography analysis was done. According to the cone location on the topographic map, the patients were divided into central and paracentral cone groups. Trial RGP lenses were selected based on the flat Sim K readings and a ‘three-point touch’ fitting approach was used. Over contact lens refraction was performed, residual astigmatism (RA) was measured and best-corrected RGP visual acuities (RGPVA) were recorded. Results The mean age (±SD) was 22.1 ± 5.3 years. 76 eyes (48.6%) had central and 80 eyes (51.4%) had paracentral cone. Prior to RGP lenses fitting mean (±SD) subjective refraction spherical equivalent (SRSE), subjective refraction astigmatism (SRAST) and BSCVA (logMAR) were −5.04 ± 2.27 D, −3.51 ± 1.68 D and 0.34 ± 0.14, respectively. There were statistically significant differences between central and paracentral cone groups in mean values of SRSE, SRAST, flat meridian (Sim K1), steep meridian (Sim K2), mean K and corneal cylinder (p-values < 0.05). Comparison of BSCVA to RGPVA shows that vision has improved 0.3 logMAR by RGP lenses (p < 0.0001). Mean (±SD) RA was −0.72 ± 0.39 D. There were no statistically significant differences between RGPVAs and RAs of central and paracentral cone groups (p = 0.22) and (p = 0.42), respectively. Pearson's correlation analysis shows that there is a statistically significant relationship between corneal cylinder and BSCVA and RGPVA, However, the relationship between corneal cylinder and residual astigmatism was not significant. Conclusions Cone location has no effect on the RGP corrected visual acuities and residual astigmatism in patients with keratoconus. Corneal cylinder and Sim K values influence RGP-corrected visual acuities but do not influence residual astigmatism.

The measurement of intraocular pressure over positive soft contact lenses by rebound tonometry [Medición de la presión intraocular sobre lentes de contacto blandas positivas, mediante tonometría de rebote]

Purpose To investigate if the accuracy of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using rebound tonometry over disposable hydrogel (etafilcon A) contact lenses (CL) is affected by the positive power of the CLs. Methods The experimental group comprised 26 subjects, (8 male, 18 female). IOP measurements were undertaken on the subjects’ right eyes in random order using a Rebound Tonometer (ICare). The CLs had powers of +2.00D and +6.00D. Measurements were taken over each contact lens and also before and after the CLs had been worn. Results The IOP measure obtained with both CLs was significantly lower compared to the value without CLs (t test; p<0.001) but no significant difference was found between the two powers of CLs. Conclusions Rebound tonometry over positive hydrogel CLs leads to a certain degree of IOP underestimation. This result didn’t change for the two positive lenses used in the experiment, despite their large difference in power and therefore in lens thickness. Optometrists should bear this in mind when measuring IOP with the rebound tonometer over plus power contact lenses.