Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association · 2020
Clinical significance of contact lens related changes of ocular surface tissue observed on optical coherence images.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Jandl Alexandra, Ruland Thomas, Schwarz David, Wolffsohn James S, Pult Heiko, Bandlitz Stefan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between the real contact lens imprint into the conjunctival tissue, observed by optical coherence tomography (OCT) and conjunctival staining and contact lens wearing comfort.
METHODS: 17 participants (mean age = 26.6 SD ± 3.6 years; 7 females) were fitted with three different contact lenses base curves of the same silicone hydrogel custom lens type (Visell 50; Hecht Contactlinsen, Au, Germany) in a randomised order. One lens was optimally fitted according to the manufacturer's recommendation, one fitted 0.4 mm flatter and one fitted 0.4 mm steeper. After 4 h of lens wear the contact lens edge in the area of the conjunctiva was imaged nasally and temporally using OCT (Optovue iVue SD-OCT). To correct the artefact due to optical distortion with OCT, the imprint of all worn lenses was measured on a glass plate afterwards. Conjunctival staining in the limbal region after 4 h of lens wear was classified using the CCLRU Grading Scale. Comfort scoring was based on visual analog scales from 0 (very poor) to 100 (excellent).
RESULTS: The mean conjunctival imprint of all contact lens edges was 32.0 ± 8.1 μm before and 7.3 ± 6.5 μm after distortion correction of the OCT images. The distortion corrected conjunctival imprint with the 0.4 mm steeper lens (11.5 ± 6.2 μm) was statistically significantly greater compared to the optimally fitted lens (6.5 ± 5.9 μm) (One-way ANOVA followed Tukey-test; p = 0.017) and greater compared to the 0.4 mm flatter lens (3.9 ± 5.3 μm) (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the optimally fitted lens and the 0.4 mm flatter lens (p = 0.209). The nasally measured imprint (11.4 ± 9.0 μm) was significantly greater than the temporally measured (3.3 ± 7.6 μm) (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant correlation between the amount of conjunctival imprint and the graded conjunctival staining (p = 0.346) or the wearer's comfort (p = 0.735).
CONCLUSIONS: Contact lens edges imaged by OCT exhibited displacement artefacts. The observed conjunctival imprints are a combination of real conjunctival compression and artefacts. A deeper imprint of the contact lens into the conjunctiva caused by a steeper base curve was not related to clinically significant staining or changes in comfort after 4 h of lens wear. The observed differences between nasal and temporal imprint are likely to be caused by variations of conjunctival thickness and the shape of the underlying sclera.
METHODS: 17 participants (mean age = 26.6 SD ± 3.6 years; 7 females) were fitted with three different contact lenses base curves of the same silicone hydrogel custom lens type (Visell 50; Hecht Contactlinsen, Au, Germany) in a randomised order. One lens was optimally fitted according to the manufacturer's recommendation, one fitted 0.4 mm flatter and one fitted 0.4 mm steeper. After 4 h of lens wear the contact lens edge in the area of the conjunctiva was imaged nasally and temporally using OCT (Optovue iVue SD-OCT). To correct the artefact due to optical distortion with OCT, the imprint of all worn lenses was measured on a glass plate afterwards. Conjunctival staining in the limbal region after 4 h of lens wear was classified using the CCLRU Grading Scale. Comfort scoring was based on visual analog scales from 0 (very poor) to 100 (excellent).
RESULTS: The mean conjunctival imprint of all contact lens edges was 32.0 ± 8.1 μm before and 7.3 ± 6.5 μm after distortion correction of the OCT images. The distortion corrected conjunctival imprint with the 0.4 mm steeper lens (11.5 ± 6.2 μm) was statistically significantly greater compared to the optimally fitted lens (6.5 ± 5.9 μm) (One-way ANOVA followed Tukey-test; p = 0.017) and greater compared to the 0.4 mm flatter lens (3.9 ± 5.3 μm) (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the optimally fitted lens and the 0.4 mm flatter lens (p = 0.209). The nasally measured imprint (11.4 ± 9.0 μm) was significantly greater than the temporally measured (3.3 ± 7.6 μm) (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant correlation between the amount of conjunctival imprint and the graded conjunctival staining (p = 0.346) or the wearer's comfort (p = 0.735).
CONCLUSIONS: Contact lens edges imaged by OCT exhibited displacement artefacts. The observed conjunctival imprints are a combination of real conjunctival compression and artefacts. A deeper imprint of the contact lens into the conjunctiva caused by a steeper base curve was not related to clinically significant staining or changes in comfort after 4 h of lens wear. The observed differences between nasal and temporal imprint are likely to be caused by variations of conjunctival thickness and the shape of the underlying sclera.