Contact Lens Spectrum

January 2006

Document #122

 

References

 

(p. 21) Contact Lens Materials: Managing Lipid Deposition on Silicone Hydrogel Lenses, By N. Rex Ghormley, OD, FAAO, & Lyndon Jones, PhD

 

1.         Alvord L, Court J, et al.: Oxygen permeability of a new type of high Dk soft contact lens material. Optom Vis Sci 1998; 75;1:  30 - 36.

2.         Tighe B: Silicone hydrogels: Structure, properties and behaviour. in Silicone Hydrogels: Continuous Wear Contact Lenses,  D. Sweeney, Editor. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2004, pp  1 - 27.

3.         Papas EB, Vajdic CM, et al.: High-oxygen-transmissibility soft contact lenses do not induce limbal hyperaemia. Curr Eye Res 1997; 16;9:  942 - 948.

4.         du Toit R, Simpson TL, et al.: Recovery from hyperemia after overnight wear of low and high transmissibility hydrogel lenses. Curr Eye Res 2001; 22;1:  68-73.

5.         Dumbleton KA, Chalmers RL, et al.: Vascular response to extended wear of hydrogel lenses with high and low oxygen permeability. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78;3:  147 - 151.

6.         Sweeney DF: Clinical signs of hypoxia with high-Dk soft lens extended wear: is the cornea convinced? Eye Contact Lens 2003; 29;1 Suppl:  S22-25.

7.         Covey M, Sweeney DF, et al.: Hypoxic effects on the anterior eye of high-Dk soft contact lens wearers are negligible. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78;2:  95-99.

8.         Jones L, May C, et al.: In vitro evaluation of the dehydration characteristics of silicone hydrogel and conventional hydrogel contact lens materials. Contact Lens & Anterior Eye 2002; 25 147 - 156.

9.         Morgan PB, Efron N: In vivo dehydration of silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2003; 29;3:  173-176.

10.       McNally J, McKenney CD: A clinical look at a silicone hydrogel extended wear lens. Contact Lens Spectrum 2002; 17;1:  38 - 41.

11.       Jones L, Senchyna M, et al.: Lysozyme and lipid deposition on silicone hydrogel contact lens materials. Eye Contact Lens 2003; 29;1 Suppl:  S75-S79.

12.       Senchyna M, Jones L, et al.: Quantitative and conformational characterization of lysozyme deposited on balafilcon and etafilcon contact lens materials. Curr Eye Res 2004; 28;1:  25-36.

13.       Subbaraman LN, Glasier MA, et al.: Stabilization of lysozyme mass extracted from lotrafilcon silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82;3:  209-214.

14.       Bruinsma GM, van der Mei HC, et al.: Bacterial adhesion to surface hydrophilic and hydrophobic contact lenses. Biomaterials 2001; 22;24:  3217-3224.

15.       Court JL, Redman RP, et al.: A novel phosphorylcholine-coated contact lens for extended wear use. Biomaterials 2001; 22;24:  3261-3272.

16.       Cheng L, Muller SJ, et al.: Wettability of silicone-hydrogel contact lenses in the presence of tear-film components. Curr Eye Res 2004; 28;2:  93-108.

17.       Karlgard C, Sarkar D, et al.: Drying methods for XPS analysis of PureVision, Focus Night&Day and conventional hydrogel contact lenses. Appl Surface Sci 2004; 230 106 - 114.

18.       Szczotka-Flynn L: Advocating a new lens group. Contact Lens Spectrum 2005; 20;2:  23.

 

 

 

(p. 26) Contact Lenses 2005, By Joseph T. Barr, OD, MS, FAAO

 

  1. Walline JJ et al. A randomized trial of the effects of rigid contact lenses on myopia progression. Arch Ophthalmol 2004 Dec;122(12):1760-6.

 

  1. Cho P, Cheung SW, Edwards M. The Longitudinal Orthokeratology Research in Children (LORIC) in Hong Kong. A pilot study on refractive changes and myopic control. Curr Eye Res 2005;30:71-80.

 

(p. 40) Lubricating Lens Focuses on Patient Comfort, By Joachim Nick, Lynn Winterton, John Lally & Bill Long

 

  1. Schlanger, J., A study of contact lens failure. J Am Optom Assoc, 1993. 64(3): p. 220-224.
  2. Solomon, O., et al., A 3-year prospective study of the clinical performance of daily disposable contact lenses compared with frequent replacement and conventional daily wear contact lenses. CLAO J, 1996. 22(4): p. 250-257.
  3. Suchecki, J., W. Ehlers, and D. PC, A comparison of contact lens-related complications in various daily wear modalities. The CLAO Journal, 2000. 26(4): p. 204-213.
  4. Jones, L., et al., Comfort and compliance with frequent replacement soft contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci, 2002. 79(12S): p. 259.
  5. Kruse, A. and T. Lofstrom, Clinical evaluation of a biocompatible daily disposable contact lens. Optician, 2005. 230(6022): p. 30-33.
  6. Bourlais, C., et al., Ophthalmic drug delivery systems. Prog Retin Eye Res, 1998. 17: p. 33-58.
  7. Mahomed, A. and B. Tighe, Contact lenses & comfort enhancers: In vivo and in vitro release of soluble PVA. BCLA Clinical Conference & Exhibition, 2004: p. 87.
  8. Mahomed, A., D. Campbell, and B. Tighe, The role of PVA in ophthalmic solutions. BCLA Clinical Conference & Exhibition, 2005: p. 116.
  9. Data on file. 2004, CIBA Vision.

 

 

(p. 47) What You Can Learn from the Tear Meniscus, By Etty Bitton, OD, MSc, FAAO

 

1.      Mainstone JC, Bruce AS, Golding TR. Tear meniscus measurement in the diagnosis of dry eye. Curr Eye Res 1996;15 :653-661.

2.      Doughty MJ, Laiquzzaman M, Oblak E, Button N. The tear (lacrimal) meniscus height in human eyes : A useful clinical measure or an unusable variable sign ? CL & Ant Eye 2002;25 :57-65.

3.      Marren S. A practical approach to meibomian dysfunction. Rev Optom 1996;Nov  15 : 61-66.

4.      Jones L, Jones D. Photofile Part one : Meibomian gland dysfunction. Optician 1995;209(5491) :30-31.

5.      Ong BL. Clinical diagnosis and management of meibomian gland dysfunction. CL Spectrum 1996;June :31-6.

6.      dePaiva CS, Pflugfelder SC. Tear clearance implications for ocular surface health. Exp Eye Res 2004;78 :395-397.