{"title":"Comparison of Silicone Hydrogel and Hydrogel Daily Disposable Contact Lenses","authors":"Jennie Diec, Daniel Tilia, Varghese Thomas","doi":"10.1097/ICL.0000000000000363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare subjective, objective and safety performance of silicone hydrogel (SiHy) daily disposable (DD) with hydrogel (Hy) DD contact lenses. Method: Retrospective analysis on approximately 40 participants (Px) each in 5 trials. Lenses grouped into SiHy (delefilcon A, somofilcon A, narafilcon A) and Hy (omafilcon A, nelfilcon A). Participants attended follow-up visits at baseline, 2 weeks, 1 and 3 months. Subjective ratings (1–10 scale), adverse events (percentage of Px), physiological variables (0–4 scale), and wearing time were collected at each visit and compared between groups. Result: Trials enrolled 201 Px totally. No differences in age, sex, and lens wear experience were found between SiHy and Hy groups (P≥0.09). There was greater increase in limbal redness from baseline in Hy group (0.18±0.38 vs. 0.02±0.47, P<0.001), whereas conjunctival staining and indentation were less in Hy group (P<0.001). No differences in comfortable wearing time were found between groups (P=0.41), and comfort at insertion, during day, and end of day was also no different (P≥0.71). Incidence of corneal infiltrative events (SiHy vs. Hy: 6.7% vs. 2.5%; P=0.32) and mechanical adverse events (SiHy vs. Hy: 0.0% vs. 0.0%; P=1.00) were no different. Conclusion: Though some statistical significance was found between the groups, these differences were within measurement error. Neither material types showed superiority in comfort, and adverse event rates were low with both material types. These findings suggest that choice of material is a patient and practitioner preference; however, for patients at risk of hypoxia-related complications, SiHy materials should be considered.","PeriodicalId":12216,"journal":{"name":"Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice","volume":"82 1","pages":"S167–S172"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"31","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000363","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31
Abstract
Objective: To compare subjective, objective and safety performance of silicone hydrogel (SiHy) daily disposable (DD) with hydrogel (Hy) DD contact lenses. Method: Retrospective analysis on approximately 40 participants (Px) each in 5 trials. Lenses grouped into SiHy (delefilcon A, somofilcon A, narafilcon A) and Hy (omafilcon A, nelfilcon A). Participants attended follow-up visits at baseline, 2 weeks, 1 and 3 months. Subjective ratings (1–10 scale), adverse events (percentage of Px), physiological variables (0–4 scale), and wearing time were collected at each visit and compared between groups. Result: Trials enrolled 201 Px totally. No differences in age, sex, and lens wear experience were found between SiHy and Hy groups (P≥0.09). There was greater increase in limbal redness from baseline in Hy group (0.18±0.38 vs. 0.02±0.47, P<0.001), whereas conjunctival staining and indentation were less in Hy group (P<0.001). No differences in comfortable wearing time were found between groups (P=0.41), and comfort at insertion, during day, and end of day was also no different (P≥0.71). Incidence of corneal infiltrative events (SiHy vs. Hy: 6.7% vs. 2.5%; P=0.32) and mechanical adverse events (SiHy vs. Hy: 0.0% vs. 0.0%; P=1.00) were no different. Conclusion: Though some statistical significance was found between the groups, these differences were within measurement error. Neither material types showed superiority in comfort, and adverse event rates were low with both material types. These findings suggest that choice of material is a patient and practitioner preference; however, for patients at risk of hypoxia-related complications, SiHy materials should be considered.
目的:比较硅胶水凝胶(SiHy)日用一次性(DD)隐形眼镜与水凝胶(Hy) DD隐形眼镜的主客观及安全性能。方法:回顾性分析5项试验,每组约40例(Px)。镜片分为SiHy (delefilcon A, somfilcon A, narafilcon A)和Hy (omafilcon A, nelfilcon A)。参与者在基线、2周、1和3个月进行随访。每次就诊时收集主观评分(1-10分)、不良事件(Px百分比)、生理变量(0-4分)和佩戴时间,并进行组间比较。结果:试验共入组201 Px。SiHy组与Hy组在年龄、性别、配戴经验等方面均无差异(P≥0.09)。Hy组角膜缘发红较基线增加较多(0.18±0.38 vs. 0.02±0.47,P<0.001),而Hy组结膜染色和压痕较少(P<0.001)。两组间舒适穿着时间无差异(P=0.41),插入时、白天和结束时的舒适度也无差异(P≥0.71)。角膜浸润事件发生率(SiHy vs. Hy: 6.7% vs. 2.5%;P=0.32)和机械不良事件(SiHy vs. Hy: 0.0% vs. 0.0%;P=1.00)无差异。结论:组间差异虽有统计学意义,但均在测量误差范围内。两种材料在舒适度上都没有优势,而且不良事件发生率都很低。这些发现表明,材料的选择是患者和医生的偏好;然而,对于有缺氧相关并发症风险的患者,应考虑使用SiHy材料。