Eye & contact lens · 2012
The clinical performance of lenses disposed of daily can vary considerably.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Diec Jennie, Lazon de la Jara Percy, Willcox Mark, Holden Brien A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical performance of three lens types disposed of on a daily disposable (DD) basis.
METHOD: A total of 120 participants were randomized into one of three lens types (etafilcon A, narafilcon A, and senofilcon A), all worn bilaterally on a DD regime. Participants were observed at baseline, 2-week, and 1- and 3-month visits where ocular physiology and lens performance variables were collected on a 0 to 4 grading scale in 0.1 increments. Subjective comfort and vision ratings were collected on a 1 to 100 rating scale and in the form of symptom severity.
RESULTS: Forty participants wore each lens type with no differences in age or gender between groups (P>0.05). Etafilcon A exhibited more limbal redness compared with either of the other lens types (P<0.01). More superior corneal staining was noted with narafilcon A lenses compared with senofilcon A (P<0.01), and more superior conjunctival indentation was noted for narafilcon A compared with etafilcon A (P=0.001). No differences were found between lenses in the 1 to 100 rating scale (P>0.05). Narafilcon A showed more moderate to severe dryness symptoms and symptoms of blurred vision at lens wearing visits (P<0.05). One bilateral contact lens papillary conjunctivitis, one unilateral superior epithelial arcuate lesion, and one infiltrative keratitis were associated with narafilcon A only. Of the seven discontinuations, six were from the narafilcon A group.
CONCLUSION: Different contact lens materials and designs, worn on the same DD modality, elicit different ocular and patient responses. Narafilcon A did not perform clinically as well as etafilcon A and senofilcon A worn on a DD modality.
METHOD: A total of 120 participants were randomized into one of three lens types (etafilcon A, narafilcon A, and senofilcon A), all worn bilaterally on a DD regime. Participants were observed at baseline, 2-week, and 1- and 3-month visits where ocular physiology and lens performance variables were collected on a 0 to 4 grading scale in 0.1 increments. Subjective comfort and vision ratings were collected on a 1 to 100 rating scale and in the form of symptom severity.
RESULTS: Forty participants wore each lens type with no differences in age or gender between groups (P>0.05). Etafilcon A exhibited more limbal redness compared with either of the other lens types (P<0.01). More superior corneal staining was noted with narafilcon A lenses compared with senofilcon A (P<0.01), and more superior conjunctival indentation was noted for narafilcon A compared with etafilcon A (P=0.001). No differences were found between lenses in the 1 to 100 rating scale (P>0.05). Narafilcon A showed more moderate to severe dryness symptoms and symptoms of blurred vision at lens wearing visits (P<0.05). One bilateral contact lens papillary conjunctivitis, one unilateral superior epithelial arcuate lesion, and one infiltrative keratitis were associated with narafilcon A only. Of the seven discontinuations, six were from the narafilcon A group.
CONCLUSION: Different contact lens materials and designs, worn on the same DD modality, elicit different ocular and patient responses. Narafilcon A did not perform clinically as well as etafilcon A and senofilcon A worn on a DD modality.