Incidence of ulcers with conventional anddisposable daily wear soft contact lenses

PhD, FBCO, FAAO Michel Guillon , PhD, FBCO Jean-Pierre Guillon , FBDO Manvinder Bansal , BSc, FBCO Ross Maskell , BSc, FBCO Paul Rees
{"title":"Incidence of ulcers with conventional anddisposable daily wear soft contact lenses","authors":"PhD, FBCO, FAAO Michel Guillon ,&nbsp;PhD, FBCO Jean-Pierre Guillon ,&nbsp;FBDO Manvinder Bansal ,&nbsp;BSc, FBCO Ross Maskell ,&nbsp;BSc, FBCO Paul Rees","doi":"10.1016/S0141-7037(94)80030-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Corneal ulcers induced by contact lens wear constitute the most serious and worrying adverse effect associated with thisform of ametropic correction. Risks have been shown to be higher for SCL than RGP and for EW than DW. Also in the UK, regardless of the modality of wear, disposable contact lenses have been reported to be associated with a much greater relative risk of ulcerative keratitis than conventional contact lenses. The UK studies, however, are case-control studies from referral centres that may not be representative of primary care contact lens practice, where the bulk of contact lens fitting is carried out. The current investigation was therefore a historical cohort study carried out in four UK contact lens practices representative of the UK mode of practice and geographic distribution. The study reviewed 647 conventional daily SCL wearers with a mean wearing time of 1.97 years and 780 disposable daily SCL wearers with a mean length of wear of 1.45 years. The results obtained lead to the following conclusions: the annualised corneal ulcer incidence rates were 1.10% for conventional daily wear soft contact lenses and 0.88% for Acuvue disposable contact lenses worn on a daily wear basis. The annualised incidence rates for corneal ulcers that might have been microbial in origin were 0.39% for conventional DW and 0.18% for disposable DW. With conventional DW, none of the ulcers encountered were central; four were paracentral and the remaining 10 were peripheral. The clinical picture observed suggests that the majority of the ulcers were not of a microbial origin, but self-limiting ‘sterile’ peripheral ulcers of yet unknown aetiology. By not differentiating ulcers by type/origin, other researchers may have substantially overestimated the true risk of contact lens related microbial keratitis. The results of this study seem to support the findings of similar studies carried out in other European countries, whereby DW with disposable contact lenses carries a similar or lower risk of keratitis than conventional DW.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100842,"journal":{"name":"Journal of The British Contact Lens Association","volume":"17 3","pages":"Pages 69-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0141-7037(94)80030-8","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of The British Contact Lens Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141703794800308","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Corneal ulcers induced by contact lens wear constitute the most serious and worrying adverse effect associated with thisform of ametropic correction. Risks have been shown to be higher for SCL than RGP and for EW than DW. Also in the UK, regardless of the modality of wear, disposable contact lenses have been reported to be associated with a much greater relative risk of ulcerative keratitis than conventional contact lenses. The UK studies, however, are case-control studies from referral centres that may not be representative of primary care contact lens practice, where the bulk of contact lens fitting is carried out. The current investigation was therefore a historical cohort study carried out in four UK contact lens practices representative of the UK mode of practice and geographic distribution. The study reviewed 647 conventional daily SCL wearers with a mean wearing time of 1.97 years and 780 disposable daily SCL wearers with a mean length of wear of 1.45 years. The results obtained lead to the following conclusions: the annualised corneal ulcer incidence rates were 1.10% for conventional daily wear soft contact lenses and 0.88% for Acuvue disposable contact lenses worn on a daily wear basis. The annualised incidence rates for corneal ulcers that might have been microbial in origin were 0.39% for conventional DW and 0.18% for disposable DW. With conventional DW, none of the ulcers encountered were central; four were paracentral and the remaining 10 were peripheral. The clinical picture observed suggests that the majority of the ulcers were not of a microbial origin, but self-limiting ‘sterile’ peripheral ulcers of yet unknown aetiology. By not differentiating ulcers by type/origin, other researchers may have substantially overestimated the true risk of contact lens related microbial keratitis. The results of this study seem to support the findings of similar studies carried out in other European countries, whereby DW with disposable contact lenses carries a similar or lower risk of keratitis than conventional DW.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
溃疡的发生率与日常佩戴常规和一次性软性隐形眼镜有关
佩戴隐形眼镜引起的角膜溃疡是与这种形式的屈光矫正相关的最严重和最令人担忧的副作用。SCL的风险高于RGP, EW的风险高于DW。同样在英国,无论佩戴方式如何,据报道,与传统隐形眼镜相比,一次性隐形眼镜患溃疡性角膜炎的相对风险要大得多。然而,英国的研究是来自转诊中心的病例对照研究,可能不能代表初级保健隐形眼镜实践,大部分隐形眼镜安装都是在初级保健中心进行的。因此,目前的调查是一项历史队列研究,在四个英国隐形眼镜实践中进行,代表了英国的实践模式和地理分布。本研究回顾了647名平均佩戴时间为1.97年的常规SCL日常佩戴者和780名平均佩戴时间为1.45年的一次性SCL日常佩戴者。结果表明:日常佩戴常规软性隐形眼镜的年化角膜溃疡发病率为1.10%,日常佩戴Acuvue一次性隐形眼镜的年化角膜溃疡发病率为0.88%。可能由微生物引起的角膜溃疡的年化发病率在常规DW组为0.39%,在一次性DW组为0.18%。在常规DW中,没有溃疡是中心溃疡;4例为中心旁性,其余10例为外周性。观察到的临床图像表明,大多数溃疡不是微生物源性的,而是病因不明的自限性“无菌”周围溃疡。由于没有区分溃疡的类型/来源,其他研究人员可能大大高估了与隐形眼镜相关的微生物角膜炎的真实风险。这项研究的结果似乎支持了在其他欧洲国家进行的类似研究的结果,即佩戴一次性隐形眼镜的女性患角膜炎的风险与佩戴常规隐形眼镜的女性相似或更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Announcement Editorial Editorial Board Editorial Notices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1