Reply

As Drs Patel and McGhee intimate, the original nerve mapping technique they described 1 was tedious and time-consuming, requiring the capture of hundreds of separate images and many hours of manual montaging to form a confluent map. The maps they published also had distracting component image delineation. It is for these reasons that a number of research groups have sought to develop automated techniques for generating these nerve maps (Table 1).2–6...

Putting vital stains in context

While vital staining remains a cornerstone in the diagnosis of ocular disease and contact lens complications, there are many misconceptions regarding the properties of commonly used dyes by eye-care practitioners and what is and what is not corneal staining after instillation of sodium fluorescein. Similarly, the proper use and diagnostic utility of rose Bengal and lissamine green B, the other two ophthalmic dyes commonly used for assessing ocular complications, have similarly remained unclear. Due to the limitations of vital stains for definitive diagnosis, concomitant signs and symptoms in addition to a complete patient history are required. Over the past decade, there have been many reports of a type of corneal staining—often referred to as solution-induced corneal staining (SICS)—that is observed with the use of multipurpose solutions in combination with soft lenses, more specifically silicone hydrogel lenses. Some authors believe that SICS is a sign of lens/solution incompatibility; however, new research shows that SICS may be neither a measure of lens/solution biocompatibility nor ‘true’ corneal staining, as that observed in pathological situations. A large component of SICS may be a benign phenomenon, known as preservative-associated transient hyperfluorescence (PATH). There is a lack of correlated signs and/or symptoms with SICS/PATH. Several properties of SICS/PATH, such as appearance and duration, differentiate it from pathological corneal staining. This paper reviews the properties of vital stains, their use and limitations in assessment of the ocular surface, the aetiology of corneal staining, characteristics of SICS/PATH that differentiate it from pathological corneal staining and what the SICS/PATH phenomenon means for contact lens-wearing patients.

Observation of solution-induced corneal staining with fluorescein, rose bengal and lissamine green

Ever since sodium fluorescein (‘fluorescein’ [FL]) was first used to investigate the ocular surface over a century ago, the term ‘staining’ has been taken to mean the presence of ocular surface fluorescence [1]. This term has not been necessarily taken to infer any particular mechanism of causation, and indeed, can be attributed to a variety of possible aetiologies [2]. In recent times, there has been considerable interest in a form of ocular surface fluorescence seen in association with the use of certain combinations of soft contact lenses and multipurpose solutions. The first clinical account of this phenomenon was reported by Jones et al. [3], which was followed by a more formal investigation by the same author in 2002 [4]. Jones et al described this appearance as a ‘classic solution-based toxicity reaction’. Subsequently, this appearance has come to be known as ‘solution-induced corneal staining’ or more recently by the acronym ‘SICS’ [5]. The term SICS is potentially problematic in that from a cell biology point of view, there is an inference that ‘staining’ means the entry of a dye into corneal epithelial cells. Morgan and Maldonado-Codina [2] noted there was no foundation of solid scientific literature underpinning our understanding of the true basic causative mechanisms of this phenomenon; since that time, further work has been published in this field [6] and [7] but questions still remain about the precise aetiology of this phenomenon...

Response to re : putting vital stains in context

A response to: "Re: Putting vital stains in context" by Eric Papas & Lyndon Jones, published in the same issue of this journal. "There has been considerable discussion in recent times about the origins of solution-induced corneal staining (SICS) and I welcome this opportunity to further clarify some points raised in my paper1 in relation to certain issues highlighted by Drs Papas and Jones.2 Part of the difficulty in understanding these phenomena relates to the imprecise terminology used. For example, Drs Papas and Jones state ‘. . . SICS..."

Response to re : putting vital stains in context

A response to "Re: Putting vital stains in context" by Charles W McMonnies, published in the same issue of this journal. "I thank Professor McMonnies for his thoughtful comments,1 which rightly forcemeto more directly address the clinical ramifications of solution-induced corneal staining (SICS). I concur with his observation that determining whether the staining can be attributed to preservative-associated transient hyperfluorescence (PATH) or true pathology can be difficult in a typical clinical situation, perhaps requiring two visits in a single day. There is no easy answer to this dilemma..."

The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: report of the contact lens interactions with the ocular surface and adnexa subcommittee

The report of this subcommittee concerns the impact of contact lenses (CLs) on the ocular surface, with a particular emphasis on CL discomfort (CLD). We define the ocular surface, its regional anatomy, and the physiological responses of each region to CL wear.

Are hypoxia or modulus causes of contact lens-associated keratitis?

In this, the 10th anniversary of the introduction of silicone hydrogel contact lenses onto the market, it is perhaps timely to attempt to reconcile the apparently disparate results from different authors in relation to the incidence of keratitis with silicone hydrogel lenses and indeed, with contact lenses in general. In attempting to understand the findings of these various studies, we propose that consideration be given to the competing effects of an improved physiological response due to increased corneal oxygenation with these lenses versus their mechanical impact...