Visual performance of the human eye with soft hydrophilic contact lenses

The recording of visual acuity using the Snellen letter chart is only a limited measure of the visual performance of an eye wearing a refractive aid. Qualitative in addition to quantitative information is required to establish such a parameter: spatial, temporal and photometric aspects must all be incorporated into the test procedure. The literature relating to the correction of ametropia by refractive aids was reviewed. Selected aspects of a comparison between the correction provided by spectacles and contact lenses were considered. Special attention was directed to soft hydrophilic contact lenses. Despite technological advances which have produced physiologically acceptable soft lenses, there still remain associated with this recent form of refractive aid unpredictable visual factors. Several techniques for vision assessment were described, and previous studies of visual performance were discussed. To facilitate the investigation of visual performance in a clinical environment, a new semi-automated system was described: this utilized the presentation of broken ring test stimuli on a television screen. The research project comprised two stages. Initial work was concerned with the validation of the television system, including the optimization of its several operational variables. The second phase involved the utilization of the system in an investigation of visual performance aspects of the first month of regular daily soft contact lens wear by experimentally-naive subjects. On the basis of the results of this work an ‘homoeostatic’ model has been proposed to represent the strategy which an observer adopts in order to optimize his visual performance with soft contact lenses.

Changing faces

News & Comment. Many influential models of prefrontal cortex function suggest that activity within this area is often associated with additional activity in posterior regions of the cortex that support perception. The purpose of this cortical ‘coupling’ is to ensure that a perceptual representation is generated and then maintained within the working memory system. Areas in the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (vlPFC) and the fusiform gyrus have been implicated as associate areas involved in face processing. In an interesting case study by Vignal, Chauvel and Halgren the functional relationship between these two areas was tested1. In order to confirm the epileptogenic foci prior to resective surgery in a 30-year-old male patient, depth electrodes were implanted into sites around prefrontal, anterior temporal and premotor cortices. While the patient was looking at a blank screen, 50-Hz electrical stimulation of two probes implanted into the right anterior frontal gyrus resulted in the patient’s reporting the perception of a series of colourful faces. These facial hallucinations were described as being ‘…like passing slides, one after the after, linked together’. When asked to look at an actual face during stimulation at the same sites the patient reported transformation of that face (such as appearing without spectacles or with a hat). These findings were related to activity of a cortical network involving the vlPFC and the fusiform gyrus. This paper thus suggests a role in face processing for the vlPFC, evoking working memory processes to maintain facial representations.

Myopia control with orthokeratology contact lenses in Spain (MCOS):refractive and biometric changes

PURPOSE. To compare axial length growth between white children with myopia wearing orthokeratology contact lenses (OK) and distance single-vision spectacles (SV) over a 2-year period. METHODS. Subjects 6 to 12 years of age with myopia -0.75 to -4.00 diopters of sphere (DS) and astigmatism ≤1.00 diopters of cylinder (DC) were prospectively allocated OK or SV correction. Measurements of axial length (Zeiss IOLMaster), corneal topography, and cycloplegic refraction were taken at 6-month intervals. RESULTS. Thirty-one children were fitted with OK and 30 with SV. Following 24 months, axial length increased significantly over time for both the OK group (0.47 mm) and SV group (0.69 mm; P < 0.001), with a significant interaction between time and group (P = 0.05) reflecting a greater increase in the SV group. Significant differences in refraction were found over time, between groups and for the interaction between time and group for spherical (all P < 0.001) but not cylindrical components of refraction (all P > 0.05). Significantly greater corneal flattening was evident in the OK group for the flatter and steeper corneal powers and for corneal shape factor (all P ≤0.05). CONCLUSIONS. Orthokeratology contact lens wear reduces axial elongation in comparison to distance single-vision spectacles in children. © 2012 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.

Keratoconus:a review

Keratoconus is the most common primary ectasia. It usually occurs in the second decade of life and affects both genders and all ethnicities. The estimated prevalence in the general population is 54 per 100,000. Ocular signs and symptoms vary depending on disease severity. Early forms normally go unnoticed unless corneal topography is performed. Disease progression is manifested with a loss of visual acuity which cannot be compensated for with spectacles. Corneal thinning frequently precedes ectasia. In moderate and advance cases, a hemosiderin arc or circle line, known as Fleischer's ring, is frequently seen around the cone base. Vogt's striaes, which are fine vertical lines produced by Descemet's membrane compression, is another characteristic sign. Most patients eventually develop corneal scarring. Munson's sign, a V-shape deformation of the lower eyelid in downward position; Rizzuti's sign, a bright reflection from the nasal area of the limbus when light is directed to the limbus temporal area; and breakages in Descemet's membrane causing acute stromal oedema, known as hydrops, are observed in advanced stages. Classifications based on morphology, disease evolution, ocular signs and index-based systems of keratoconus have been proposed. Theories into the genetic, biomechanical and biochemical causes of keratoconus have been suggested. Management varies depending on disease severity. Incipient cases are managed with spectacles, mild to moderate cases with contact lenses and severe cases can be treated with keratoplasty. This article provides a review on the definition, epidemiology, clinical features, classification, histopathology, aetiology and pathogenesis, and management and treatment strategies for keratoconus.

Requirement for and optimisation of premium intraocular lenses

Premium intraocular lenses (IOLs) aim to surgically correct astigmatism and presbyopia following cataract extraction, optimising vision and eliminating the need for cataract surgery in later years. It is usual to fully correct astigmatism and to provide visual correction for distance and near when prescribing spectacles and contact lenses, however for correction with the lens implanted during cataract surgery, patients are required to purchase the premium IOLs and pay surgery fees outside the National Health Service in the UK. The benefit of using toric IOLs was thus demonstrated, both in standard visual tests and real-world situations. Orientation of toric IOLs during implantation is critical and the benefit of using conjunctival blood vessels for alignment was shown. The issue of centration of IOLs relative to the pupil was also investigated, showing changes with the amount of dilation and repeat dilation evaluation, which must be considered during surgery to optimize the visual performance of premium IOLs. Presbyopia is a global issue, of growing importance as life expectancy increases, with no real long-term cure. Despite enhanced lifestyles, changes in diet and improved medical care, presbyopia still presents in modern life as a significant visual impairment. The onset of presbyopia was found to vary with risk factors including alcohol consumption, smoking, UV exposure and even weight as well as age. A new technique to make measurement of accommodation more objective and robust was explored, although needs for further design modifications were identified. Due to dysphotopsia and lack of intermediate vision through most multifocal IOL designs, the development of a trifocal IOL was shown to minimize these aspects. The current thesis, therefore, emphasises the challenges of premium IOL surgery and need for refinement for optimum visual outcome in addition to outlining how premium IOLs may provide long-term and successful correction of astigmatism and presbyopia.

Future of contact lens usage

I was recently part of a small committee looking at higher qualifications in contact lens practice and the discussion turned to future technologies. There was mention of different materials and different applications of contact lenses. Drug delivery with contact lenses was discussed as this has been talked about in the literature for a while. The first paper I could find that talked about using contact lenses for drug delivery dates back over 40 years. There was a review paper in CLAE in 2008 that looked specifically at this too [1]. However, where are these products? Why are we not seeing them in the market place? Maybe the technology is not quite there yet, or maybe patents are prohibiting usage or maybe the market is not big enough to develop such products? We do have lenses on the market with slow release of lubricating agents but not therapeutic agents used for ocular or systemic conditions. Contact lenses with pathogen detectors may be part of our contact lens armoury of the future and again we can already see papers in the literature that have trialled this technology for glucose monitoring in diabetics or lactate concentration in the tear film. Future contact lenses may incorporate better optics based on aberration control and we see this starting to emerge with aspheric designs designed to minimise spherical aberration. Irregular corneas can be fitted with topography based designs and again this technology exists and is being used by some manufacturers in their designs already. Moreover, the topography based fitting of irregular corneas is certainly something we see a lot of today and CLAE has seen many articles related to this over the last decade or so. What about further into the future? Well one interesting area must the 3-dimensional contact lenses, or contact lenses with electronic devices built in that simulate a display screen. A little like the virtual display spectacles that are already sold by electronics companies. It does not take much of a stretch of the imagination to see a large electronic company taking this technology on and making it viable. Will we see people on the train watching movies on these electronic virtual reality contact lenses? I think we will, but when is harder to know.

Factors preventing myopia progression with orthokeratology correction

PURPOSE: To examine which baseline measurements constitute predictive factors for axial length growth over 2 years in children wearing orthokeratology contact lenses (OK) and single-vision spectacles (SV). METHODS: Sixty-one children were prospectively assigned to wear either OK (n = 31) or SV (n = 30) for 2 years. The primary outcome measure (dependent variable) was axial length change at 2 years relative to baseline. Other measurements (independent variables) were age, age of myopia onset, gender, myopia progression 2 years before baseline and baseline myopia, anterior chamber depth, corneal power and shape (p value), and iris and pupil diameters as well as parental refraction. The contribution of all independent variables to the 2-year change in axial length was assessed using univariate and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: After univariate analyses, smaller increases in axial length were found in the OK group compared to the SV group in children who were older, had earlier onset of myopia, were female, had lower rate of myopia progression before baseline, had less myopia at baseline, had longer anterior chamber depth, had greater corneal power, had more prolate corneal shape, had larger iris diameter, had larger pupil sizes, and had lower levels of parental myopia (all p < 0.05). In multivariate analyses, older age and greater corneal power were associated with smaller increases in axial length in the OK group (both p < 0.05), whereas in SV wearers, smaller iris diameter was associated with smaller increases in axial length (p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Orthokeratology is a successful treatment option in controlling axial elongation compared to SV in children of older age, had earlier onset of myopia, were female, had lower rate of myopia progression before baseline, had lower myopia at baseline, had longer anterior chamber depth, had greater corneal power, had more prolate corneal shape, had larger iris and pupil diameters, and had lower levels of parental myopia. © American Academy of Optometry.

Ocular motor triad with single vision contact lenses compared to spectacle lenses

Aim: Theoretically myopes are required to exert more accommodation and vergence when wearing single vision contact lenses compared to glasses and hypermetropes less. This study aims to quantify the effects clinically. Method: Thirty subjects (21 female, nine male, average age 21.0 ± 2.2 years) with a range of refractive errors (-7.87 D to +3.50 D) viewed in a random order, static targets at 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 D accommodative demand that were matched for angular subtense. The subjects were fully corrected with spectacles and daily disposable contact lenses to their full prescription. Accommodation was monitored objectively with the PowerRefractor and Shin-Nippon SRW5000 and vergence and pupil size with the PowerRefractor. Results: Myopes exerted greater accommodative effort for viewing near targets with contact lenses than glasses and hypermetropes less (r2 = 0.35, p = 0.001 PowerRefractor). Myopes also exerted greater vergence effort for viewing near targets with contact lenses than glasses and hypermetropes less (r2 = 0.22, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Theoretical calculation of the accommodative and vergence requirements with glasses compared to contact lenses reflect clinical findings, although there is reasonable variability between individuals. © 2006 British Contact Lens Association.

Conjunctival UV autofluorescence - prevalence and risk factors

Purpose: Autofluorescence of ultraviolet (UV) light has been shown to occur in localised areas of the bulbar conjunctiva, which map to active cellular changes due to UV and environmental exposure. This study examined the presence of conjunctival UV autofluorescence in eye care practitioners (ECPs) across Europe and the Middle East and its associated risk factors. Method: Images were captured of 307 ECPs right eyes in the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Kuwait, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom using a Nikon D100 camera and dual flash units through UV filters. UV autofluorescence was outlined using ImageJ software and the nasal and temporal area quantified. Subjects were required to complete a questionnaire on their demographics and lifestyle including general exposure to UV and refractive correction. Results: Average age of the subjects was 38.5±12.2 years (range 19-68) and 39.7% were male. Sixty-two percent of eyes had some conjunctival damage as indicated by UV autofluorescence. The average area of damage was higher (p=0.005) nasally (2.95±4.52mm2) than temporally (2.19±4.17mm2). The area of UV damage was not related to age (r=0.03, p=0.674), gender (p=0.194), self-reported sun exposure lifestyle (p>0.05), geographical location (p=0174), sunglasses use (p>0.05) or UV-blocking contact lens use (p>0.05), although it was higher in those wearing contact lenses with minimal UV-blocking and no spectacles (p=0.015). The area of UV damage was also less nasally in those who wore contact lenses and spectacles compared to those with no refractive correction use (p=0.011 nasal; p=0.958 temporal). Conclusion: UV conjunctival damage is common even in Europe, Kuwait and UAE, and among ECPs. The area of damage appears to be linked with the use of refractive correction, with greater damage nasally than temporally which may be explained by the peripheral light focusing effect.

Editorial

This time of year we look back at the year that has passed and make plans for the next year. I like to reflect on things that I have learnt and people that I have met, especially those who facilitated that learning. In 2009 I went to various conferences, The BCLA conference in Manchester, The Romanian Optical Society meeting in Brasov, Transylvania (where the university is actually on Vlad Tepes Street), The European Council for Optometry and Optics (ECOO) in Brno, Czech Republic, The American Academy of Optometry (AAO) in Orlando USA, The International Association of Contact Lens Educators (IACLE) meeting in Tianjin China and finally The Vereinigung Deutscher Contactlinsen-Spezialisten (VDCO) meeting in Jena. All were interesting places and thoroughly all were enjoyable conferences with their own highlights but I wanted to focus on Jena and one person I met there and his inspirational search for knowledge and the contributions he made in the field of contact lenses. Jena itself is a fascinating place and should be on the ‘must visit’ list of anyone involved in eye care. It is the birth place of Carl Zeiss of course and where he started his company. It is also the birth place of Ernst Abbe (physicist and optometrist and expert lens maker), and Otto Schott (chemist and technologist who made high quality glass. There are many road signs bearing witness to these famous pioneers. The optical museum is worth spending a few hours looking around too. I was invited to speak at the VDCO at the kind invitation from colleagues at the Jena School of Optometry, Professor Wolfgang Sickenberger and Professor Sebastian Marx. At this meeting I met 87-year-old Willi KAUE who was being awarded the Adolf Wilhelm Müller-Welt prize by the VDCO for contribution to contact lenses over his 60-year career. At the age of 15 Willi Kaue took up an apprenticeship to become an Optician in Germany in 1937. At this time he first heard about the scleral glass lenses made by the Carl Zeiss Company in Jena. This started his lifelong fascination which was to become his passion but not yet his career. During the war he was enlisted into military service but immediately after was back to his former career. In 1950 Willi corrected his own 3.5 dioptres of myopia with a plastic scleral lens. His fascination strengthened as for the first time he himself could experience a wider field of view than his spectacles gave him, less aberrations and less retinal minification. He also appreciated the fact that contact lenses did not cause pressure on the nose or ears and did not slide down his nose plus remained optically centred with his eye movements. He decided that form now on he would make fitting contact lenses his career. He travelled to London to learn more about contact lenses and how to fit them but initially did not find many willing teachers and to start with became largely self-taught. He wanted to know how to make scleral lenses. So far he only knew that pulverized polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) was pressed and moulded. In 1951 he met Berlin optician Otto Marzock. He made his only scleral lenses from using military PMMA windshields. His process involved lathe cutting the lenses and resulted in lenses that were thinner than moulded ones. Willi developed a manufacturing method, using a rotary diamond drill, starting form the outer edge and towards the centre at a constant cut speed. This enabled him to make more reproducible lenses and in less time. His enthusiasm in the field was clear from the travels he made in the pursuit of advancement - travelling around Europe, South America, North America and Asia. In 1963 he visited George Nissel in Hemel Hempstead, England. Constantly thriving towards innovations Willi came across the new Naturalens from the USA made from HEMA at a congress in Marseille in 1969. Amongst his contributions to the field, was his own technique of fitting ocular prosthetics, using an alginate impression of the orbit. I was fortunate enough to have dinner with Willi Kaue and learnt more about his fascinating career through the patient interpreting skills of Hilmar Bussacker (the 2008 winner of the same award and the 2007 winner of the European Federation of the Contact Lens and IOL Industries Award). I look forward to 2010 with eager anticipation as to what I may learn and who I might meet!!! Copyright © 2009 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Optical quality and visual performance with customised soft contact lenses for keratoconus

Purpose: This study investigated how aberration-controlling, customised soft contact lenses corrected higher-order ocular aberrations and visual performance in keratoconic patients compared to other forms of refractive correction (spectacles and rigid gas-permeable lenses). Methods: Twenty-two patients (16 rigid gas-permeable contact lens wearers and six spectacle wearers) were fitted with standard toric soft lenses and customised lenses (designed to correct 3rd-order coma aberrations). In the rigid gas-permeable lens-wearing patients, ocular aberrations were measured without lenses, with the patient's habitual lenses and with the study lenses (Hartmann-Shack aberrometry). In the spectacle-wearing patients, ocular aberrations were measured both with and without the study lenses. LogMAR visual acuity (high-contrast and low-contrast) was evaluated with the patient wearing their habitual correction (of either spectacles or rigid gas-permeable contact lenses) and with the study lenses. Results: In the contact lens wearers, the habitual rigid gas-permeable lenses and customised lenses provided significant reductions in 3rd-order coma root-mean-square (RMS) error, 3rd-order RMS and higher-order RMS error (p ≤ 0.004). In the spectacle wearers, the standard toric lenses and customised lenses significantly reduced 3rd-order RMS and higher-order RMS errors (p ≤ 0.005). The spectacle wearers showed no significant differences in visual performance measured between their habitual spectacles and the study lenses. However, in the contact lens wearers, the habitual rigid gas-permeable lenses and standard toric lenses provided significantly better high-contrast acuities compared to the customised lenses (p ≤ 0.006). Conclusions: The customised lenses provided substantial reductions in ocular aberrations in these keratoconic patients; however, the poor visual performances achieved with these lenses are most likely to be due to small, on-eye lens decentrations. © 2014 The College of Optometrists.

Visual performance and optical quality with soft lenses in keratoconus patients

Purpose: To assess visual performance and ocular aberrations in keratoconic patients using toric soft contact lenses (SCL), rigid-gas-permeable (RGP) contact lenses and spectacle lens correction. Methods: Twenty-two keratoconus patients (16 RGP lens wearers and six spectacle wearers) were fitted with toric SCL. Ocular aberrations were measured with and without the patient's habitual RGP lenses and with the SCL in place. In the spectacle wearers, aberrations were measured with and without the SCL. Visual performance (high- and low-contrast visual acuity) was evaluated with the patient's habitual correction and with the SCL. Results: In the RGP lens wearers both the habitual lenses and the toric SCL significantly reduced coma, trefoil, 3rd-order, 4th-order cylinder and higher-order root-mean-square (RMS) aberrations (p≤0.015). In the spectacle wearers the toric SCL significantly reduced coma, 3rd-order and higher-order RMS aberrations (p≤0.01). The patients' habitual RGP lenses gave better low-contrast acuity (p≤0.006) compared to the toric SCL; however, no significant difference was found between lens types for high-contrast acuity (p=0.10). In the spectacle wearers no significant differences in visual performance measurements were found between the patients' spectacles and the toric SCL (p≥0.06). Conclusion: The results show that RGP lenses provided superior visual performances and greater reduction of 3rd-order aberrations compared to toric SCL in this group of keratoconic patients. In the spectacle-wearing group, visual performance with the toric SCL was found to be comparable to that measured with spectacles. Nevertheless, with the exception of spherical aberration, the toric SCL were successful in significantly reducing uncorrected higher-order aberrations. Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics © 2012 The College of Optometrists.

Determining which factors influence the optimum multifocal contact lens correction for presbyopia

Presbyopia is a consequence of ageing and is therefore increasing inprevalence due to an increase in the ageing population. Of the many methods available to manage presbyopia, the use of contact lenses is indeed a tried and tested reversible option for those wishing to be spectacle free. Contact lens options to correct presbyopia include multifocal contact lenses and monovision.Several options have been available for many years with available guides to help choose multifocal contact lenses. However there is no comprehensive way to help the practitioner selecting the best option for an individual. An examination of the simplest way of predicting the most suitable multifocal lens for a patient will only enhance and add to the current evidence available. The purpose of the study was to determine the current use of presbyopic correction modalities in an optometric practice population in the UK and to evaluate and compare the optical performance of four silicone hydrogel soft multifocal contact lenses and to compare multifocal performance with contact lens monovision. The presbyopic practice cohort principal forms of refractive correction were distance spectacles (with near and intermediate vision providedby a variety of other forms of correction), varifocal spectacles and unaided distance with reading spectacles, with few patients wearing contact lenses as their primary correction modality. The results of the multifocal contact lens randomised controlled trial showed that there were only minor differences in corneal physiology between the lens options. Visual acuity differences were observed for distance targets, but only for low contrast letters and under mesopic lighting conditions. At closer distances between 20cm and 67cm, the defocus curves demonstrated that there were significant differences in acuity between lens designs (p < 0.001) and there was an interaction between the lens design and the level of defocus (p < 0.001). None of the lenses showed a clear near addition, perhaps due to their more aspheric rather than zoned design. As expected, stereoacuity was reduced with monovision compared with the multifocal contact lens designs, although there were some differences between the multifocal lens designs (p < 0.05). Reading speed did not differ between lens designs (F = 1.082, p = 0.368), whereas there was a significant difference in critical print size (F = 7.543, p < 0.001). Glare was quantified with a novel halometer and halo size was found to significantly differ between lenses(F = 4.101, p = 0.004). The rating of iPhone image clarity was significantly different between presbyopic corrections (p = 0.002) as was the Near Acuity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) rating of near performance (F = 3.730, p = 0.007).The pupil size did not alter with contact lens design (F = 1.614, p = 0.175), but was larger in the dominant eye (F = 5.489, p = 0.025). Pupil decentration relative to the optical axis did not alter with contact lens design (F = 0.777, p =0.542), but was also greater in the dominant eye (F = 9.917, p = 0.003). It was interesting to note that there was no difference in spherical aberrations induced between the contact lens designs (p > 0.05), with eye dominance (p > 0.05) oroptical component (ocular, corneal or internal: p > 0.05). In terms of subjective patient lens preference, 10 patients preferred monovision,12 Biofinity multifocal lens, 7 Purevision 2 for Presbyopia, 4 AirOptix multifocal and 2 Oasys multifocal contact lenses. However, there were no differences in demographic factors relating to lifestyle or personality, or physiological characteristics such as pupil size or ocular aberrations as measured at baseline,which would allow a practitioner to identify which lens modality the patient would prefer. In terms of the performance of patients with their preferred lens, it emerged that Biofinity multifocal lens preferring patients had a better high contrast acuity under photopic conditions, maintained their reading speed at smaller print sizes and subjectively rated iPhone clarity as better with this lens compared with the other lens designs trialled. Patients who preferred monovision had a lower acuity across a range of distances and a larger area of glare than those patients preferring other lens designs that was unexplained by the clinical metrics measured. However, it seemed that a complex interaction of aberrations may drive lens preference. New clinical tests or more diverse lens designs which may allow practitioners to prescribe patients the presbyopic contact lens option that will work best for them first time remains a hope for the future.

Global trends in myopia management attitudes and strategies in clinical practice

PURPOSE: Myopia is a global public health issue; however, no information exists as to how potential myopia retardation strategies are being adopted globally. METHODS: A self-administrated, internet-based questionnaire was distributed in six languages, through professional bodies to eye care practitioners globally. The questions examined: awareness of increasing myopia prevalence, perceived efficacy and adoption of available strategies, and reasons for not adopting specific strategies. RESULTS: Of the 971 respondents, concern was higher (median 9/10) in Asia than in any other continent (7/10, p<0.001) and they considered themselves more active in implementing myopia control strategies (8/10) than Australasia and Europe (7/10), with North (4/10) and South America (5/10) being least proactive (p<0.001). Orthokeratology was perceived to be the most effective method of myopia control, followed by increased time outdoors and pharmaceutical approaches, with under-correction and single vision spectacles felt to be the least effective (p<0.05). Although significant intra-regional differences existed, overall most practitioners 67.5 (±37.8)% prescribed single vision spectacles or contact lenses as the primary mode of correction for myopic patients. The main justifications for their reluctance to prescribe alternatives to single vision refractive corrections were increased cost (35.6%), inadequate information (33.3%) and the unpredictability of outcomes (28.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of practitioners' awareness of the efficacy of myopia control techniques, the vast majority still prescribe single vision interventions to young myopes. In view of the increasing prevalence of myopia and existing evidence for interventions to slow myopia progression, clear guidelines for myopia management need to be established.

Editorial

The year so far has been a slow start for many businesses, but at least we have not seen the collapse of as many businesses that we were seeing around two years ago. We are, however, still well and truly in the midst of a global recession. Interest rates are still at an all time low, UK house prices seem to be showing little signs of increase (except in London where everyone still seems to want to live!) and for the ardent shopper there are bargains to be had everywhere. It seems strange that prices on the high street do not seem to have increased in over ten years. Mobile phones, DVD players even furniture seems to be cheaper than they used to be. Whist much of this is down to cheaper manufacturing and the rest could probably be explained by competition within the market place. Does this mean that quality suffered too? Now that we live in a world when if a television is not working it is thrown away and replaced. There was a time when you would take it to some odd looking man that your father would know who could fix it for you. (I remember our local television fix-it man, with his thick rimmed bifocal spectacles and a poor comb-over; he had cardboard boxes full of resistors and electrical wires on the floor of his front room that smelt of soldering irons!) Is this consumerism at an extreme or has this move to disposability made us a better society? Before you think these are just ramblings there is a point to this. According to latest global figures of contact lens sales the vast majority of contact lenses fitted around the world are daily, fortnightly or monthly disposable hydrogel lenses. Certainly in the UK over 90% of lenses are disposable (with daily disposables being the most popular, having a market share of over 50%). This begs the question – is this a good thing? Maybe more importantly, do our patients benefit? I think it is worth reminding ourselves why we went down the disposability route with contact lenses in the first place, and unlike electrical goods it was not just so we did not have to take them for repair! There are the obvious advantages of overcoming problems of breakage and tearing of lenses and the lens deterioration with age. The lenses are less likely to be contaminated and the disinfection is either easier or not required at all (in the case of daily disposable lenses). Probably the landmark paper in the field was the work more commonly known as the ‘Gothenburg Study’. The paper, entitled ‘Strategies for minimizing the Ocular Effects of Extended Contact Lens Wear’ published in the American Journal of Optometry in 1987 (volume 64, pages 781-789) by Holden, B.A., Swarbrick, H.A., Sweeney, D.F., Ho, A., Efron, N., Vannas, A., Nilsson, K.T. They suggested that contact lens induced ocular effects were minimised by: •More frequently removed contact lenses •More regularly replaced contact lenses •A lens that was more mobile on the eye (to allow better removal of debris) •Better flow of oxygen through the lens All of these issues seem to be solved with disposability, except the oxygen issue which has been solved with the advent of silicone hydrogel materials. Newer issues have arisen and most can be solved in practice by the eye care practitioner. The emphasis now seems to be on making lenses more comfortable. The problems of contact lens related dry eyes symptoms seem to be ever present and maybe this would explain why in the UK we have a pretty constant contact lens wearing population of just over three million but every year we have over a million dropouts! That means we must be attracting a million new wearers every year (well done to the marketing departments!) but we are also losing a million wearers every year. We certainly are not losing them all to the refractive surgery clinics. We know that almost anyone can now wear a contact lens and we know that some lenses will solve problems of sharper vision, some will aid comfort, and some will be useful for patients with dry eyes. So if we still have so many dropouts then we must be doing something wrong! I think the take home message has to be ‘must try harder’! I must end with an apology for two errors in my editorial of issue 1 earlier this year. Firstly there was a typo in the first sentence; I meant to state that it was 40 years not 30 years since the first commercial soft lens was available in the UK. The second error was one that I was unaware of until colleagues Geoff Wilson (Birmingham, UK) and Tim Bowden (London, UK) wrote to me to explain that soft lenses were actually available in the UK before 1971 (please see their ‘Letters to the Editor’ in this issue). I am grateful to both of them for correcting the mistake.