Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2008
Comparative study of two silicone hydrogel contact lenses used as bandage contact lenses after LASEK.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gil-Cazorla Raquel, Teus Miguel A, Hernández-Verdejo Jose L, De Benito-Llopis Laura, García-González Monsterrat
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate two silicone hydrogel contact lens materials as continuous-wear bandage contact lenses after laser-assisted subepithelial keratomileusis (LASEK).
METHODS: The inclusion criteria were myopia of -6.00 diopters (D) or less, astigmatism lower than -1.5 D, bilateral best-corrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better, and candidates for bilateral LASEK. The patients were randomized to be fitted with a Balafilcon A (PureVision) lens in one eye and Galyfilcon A (Acuvue Advance) in the fellow eye. Uncorrected visual acuity, corneal epithelial status, conjunctival and limbal hyperemia, lens movement, contact lens debris, and the responses to a subjective-comfort questionnaire were assessed postoperatively. The parameters were evaluated before and 1 and 5 days after the procedure. A paired Student's t-test and chi-square tests were used when appropriate.
RESULTS: We analyzed 44 eyes of 22 consecutive patients who underwent LASEK to correct low-to-moderate myopia. The mean spherical equivalent was -3.25 +/- 2.36 D. There was no difference in conjunctival or limbal hyperemia, lens movement, uncorrected visual acuity, or epithelial healing between the two lenses at any visit. A significant difference was found in lens deposition and discomfort, which were greater with the PureVision lens 5 days postoperatively (p = 0.01 for both comparisons).
CONCLUSIONS: PureVision and Acuvue Advance contact lenses seem to be useful as continuous wear bandage contact lenses. There is no major clinical difference between the lenses, although patients report greater comfort with Acuvue Advance.
METHODS: The inclusion criteria were myopia of -6.00 diopters (D) or less, astigmatism lower than -1.5 D, bilateral best-corrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better, and candidates for bilateral LASEK. The patients were randomized to be fitted with a Balafilcon A (PureVision) lens in one eye and Galyfilcon A (Acuvue Advance) in the fellow eye. Uncorrected visual acuity, corneal epithelial status, conjunctival and limbal hyperemia, lens movement, contact lens debris, and the responses to a subjective-comfort questionnaire were assessed postoperatively. The parameters were evaluated before and 1 and 5 days after the procedure. A paired Student's t-test and chi-square tests were used when appropriate.
RESULTS: We analyzed 44 eyes of 22 consecutive patients who underwent LASEK to correct low-to-moderate myopia. The mean spherical equivalent was -3.25 +/- 2.36 D. There was no difference in conjunctival or limbal hyperemia, lens movement, uncorrected visual acuity, or epithelial healing between the two lenses at any visit. A significant difference was found in lens deposition and discomfort, which were greater with the PureVision lens 5 days postoperatively (p = 0.01 for both comparisons).
CONCLUSIONS: PureVision and Acuvue Advance contact lenses seem to be useful as continuous wear bandage contact lenses. There is no major clinical difference between the lenses, although patients report greater comfort with Acuvue Advance.