Contact Lens Spectrum

July 2004

Document #107

 

References

 

(p. 24) Treating Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases in Contact Lens Wearers, by Vishakha Thakrar, OD

 

  1. Blondeau JM. Fluoroquinolones: Mechanism of action, classification, and development of resistance. Survey of Ophthalmology 2004;49(2)S73-5.
  2. Hwang DG.  Fluoroquinolone resistance in ophthalmology and the potential role for newer ophthalmic fluoroquinolones. Survey of Ophthalmology 2004;49(2)S76-83.
  3. O’Brien TP, Maquire MG, Fink NE et al. Efficacy of ofloxacin versus cefazolin and tobramycin in the therapy for bacterial keratitis.  Report form the Bacterial Keratitis Study Research Group. Arch Ophthamol 1995;113:1257-1265.
  4. Kowalski RP, Dhaliwal DK, Karenchak LM, et al. Gatifloxacin and Moxifloxacin: An in vitro susceptibility comparison to Levofloxacin, Ciprofloxacin, and Ofloxacin using bacterial keratitis isolates. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2003;136(3):500-5.
  5. Mather R, Karenchak LM, Romanowski EG, Kowalski RP. Fourth generation fluoroquinolones: New weapons in the arsenal of ophthalmic antibiotics. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2002;133(4):463-466.
  6. Hooper DC. Mechanisms of fluoroquinolone resistance. Drug Resist Updates 1999;2:38-55.
  7. VIGAMOXTM prescribing information.
  8. ZYMARTM prescribing information.
  9. Stroman D., Alcon Laboratories. Data on file.
  10. Yee RW, Sorour HM, Yee SB, et al. Comparison of Relative Toxicity of Four Ophthalmic Antibiotics Using the Human Cornea Epithelial Cell Culture System
    Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004:45; E-Abstract 4939.
  11. Nguyen QH, Friedlaender MH, Sharf L, Breshears D. Objective and Subjective Measurement of Drug Toxicity Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004: 45; E-Abstract 4937.
  12. Ilyas H, Slonim CB, Braswell GR, Favetta JR, Schulman M. Long-term safety of loteprednol etabonate 0.2% in the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis. Eye Contact Lens 2004;1:10-13.
  13. Shulman DG, Lothringer L, Rubin J. et al.  A randomize, double-masked, placebo-controlled parallel study of loteprednol etabonate 0.2% in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Ophthalmology 1999;106:362-369.
  14. Dell SJ, Shulman DG, Lowry MG et al. Controlled evaluation of efficacy and safety of loteprednol etabonate in the prophylactic treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.  Am J Ophthalmol 1997;123(6):791-797.
  15. Dell SJ, Lowry MG, Northcutt JA, et al.  A randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled parallel study of 0.2% loteprednol etabonate in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. J Alllergy Clin Immunol 1998;102(2):251-255.
  16. RESTASISTM prescribing information.
  17. Perry HD, Donnenfeld ED.  Topical Cyclosporine A in the treatment of posterior blepharitis. ARVO 2003.
  18. Hingorani M, Calder VL, Buckley RJ, Lightman S. The immunomodulator effect of topical Cyclosporine A in atopic keratoconjunctivitis.  Invest. Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40:392-9.
  19. Hingorani M, Moodaley L, Calder VL, Buckley RJ, Lightman S. A randomized placebo-controlled trial of topical cyclosporine A in steroid-dependent atopic keratoconjunctivitis. Ophthalmology.1998;105:1715-2.
  20. Foster CS et al: Immunopathology of atopic keratoconjunctivitis. Ophthalmology 1998; 98: 1190.

 

 

(p. 42) Masking Cylinder with Aspheric Soft Lenses, by Nimesh Patel, OD, Linda L. Edmondson, AM, OD, FAAO, and William Edmondson II, MAT, OD, FAAO

 

1.  Holden, B. A.  The Principles and Practice of Correcting Astigmatism with Soft Contact Lenses.  Australian J Optometry 1975; 58(8):279

 

2.  Isen AA.  The Griffin Lens.  J Am Optom Assoc 1972; 43:275-86

 

3.  Gasson A.  Clinical experiences with the Bausch and Lomb lens.  Ophthal Optician 1973; 60:6,8,11

 

4.  Burnett Hodd NF.  Contact Lens Fitting.  International Contact Lens Yearbook 1980-81; 23-31

 

5. Lee A, Sarver D.  The gel lens transferred corneal toricity as a function of lens thickness.  Am J Optom 1972; 49:35-40

 

6.  Bennett AG.  Power changes in soft contact lenses due to bending.  Ophthal. Optician 1976; 16:939-45

 

7.  Snyder C,  Talley DK.  Masking of Astigmatism with selected spherical soft contact lenses.  Journal American Optometric Association, 1989; 60(10):728-31

 

8.  Wechsler, S.  Masking Astigmatism with Spherical Soft Contact Lenses.  Contact Lens Forum 1986; 11(9): 42-45

 

9.  Harris M G, Lau S, Ma H, Tuan J.  Do Disposable contact lenses mask astigmatism?  Optical Prism 1996; 14(2):40,42,44-46

 

10.  Bernstein, P.R., Gundel, R.E. and Rosen, J.S.  Masking corneal toricity with hydrogels: does it work?  Int Contact Lens Clin 1991; 60:728-31

 

11.  Raklow PL.  Lens / cornea relationships: The key to fine-tuning soft lens fits.  J Ophthalmic Nursing 2000; 19 (3):151-153

 

12.  Weissman BA.  A general relation between changing surface radii of flexing soft contact lenses.  Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1984; 61:651-3

 

13.  Weissman BA.  Clinical soft lens power changes.  Int Contact Lens Clin 1984; 11:342-6

 

14.  McMonnoes, Charles W.  Predicting residual astigmatism with flexible hydrophillic contact lenses.  Aust J Optom 1972; 55:106-111

 

15.  Sarver MD.  Vision with hydrophillic contact lenses.  Journal American Optometric Association 1972; 43: 316-20

16.  Harris MG, Goldberg T, McBride D, et al.  Residual astigmatism and visual acuity with hydrogel contact lenses: a comparative study.  Journal American Optometric Association 1979; 50: 303-6

 

17.  Debkowski J A, Roach M P, Begley C G.  Soft toric versus spherical contact lenses in myopes with low astigmatism.  ICLC 1992; 19(11):252-256

 

18.  Cho P C, Woo G C.  Vision of low astigmats through thick and thin lathe-cut soft contact lenses.  Contact Lens Anterior Eye, 2001; 24(4):153-160

 

19. Gundel, R.E., Kirshen, S.A., and DiVergillo, D.  Changes in contrast sensitivity induced by spherical hydrogel lenses on low astigmats.  Journal American Optometric Association 1988; 59:636-40

 

20.  Tyler’s Quarterly Soft Contact Lens Parameter Guide Professional Edition.  September 2002; 19(4):38

 

21.  Ross S., Pack L., et al.  Visual and Optical Performance of Frequency 55 Aspheric vs. Spheric contact lenses.  Poster: American Academy of Optometry, December 13th 2002.

 

22.  Lyle WA, Jin GJ.  Results of flap repositioning after laser in situ keratmileusis.  J Cataract Refract Surg 2000Oct; 26(10):1451-1457

 

23.  Chou B, Wachler B S.  Soft contact lenses for irregular astigmatism after laser in situ keratomileusis.  Journal of Refractive Surgery  2001; 17(6):692-695

 

24.  Koliopoulos J, Tragakis M.  Visual correction of keratoconus with soft contact lenses.  Ann Ophthalmol 1981; 13:835-837.

 

 

(p. 52) Readers’ Forum: Daily Wear is Broken — But We Can Fix it, by Michael P. Rosenblatt, OD

 

[1] HPR 2003

[1] Health Products Research VISION INFORMATION SERVICESSM Annual Consumer Eyewear Study 2003