(p. 12) Research Review – Biosensing Contact Lenses and Glaucoma
By Eric Papas, PhD, MCOptom, DipCL, FAAO
1. Greene ME, Gilman BG. Intraocular pressure measurement with instrumented contact lens. Invest Ophth Vis Sci. 1974;13:299-302.
2. Leonardi M, Leuenberger P, Bertrand D, Bertsch A, Renaud P. First Steps toward Noninvasive Intraocular Pressure Monitoring with a Sensing Contact Lens. Invest Ophth Vis Sci. 2004;45(9):3113-7.
3. Sensimed Triggerfish. Available from: http://www.sensimed.ch/en/sensimed-triggerfish/sensimed-triggerfish.html. [Accessed 1st November 2014].
4. Agnifili L, Mastropasqua R, Frezzotti P, et al. Circadian intraocular pressure patterns in healthy subjects, primary open angle and normal tension glaucoma patients with a contact lens sensor. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014 April 10. [Epub ahead of print]
5. Mottet B, Aptel F, Romanet JP, Hubanova R, Pépin JL, Chiquet C. 24-hour intraocular pressure rhythm in young healthy subjects evaluated with continuous monitoring using a contact lens sensor. JAMA Ophthalmology. 2013;131:1507-1516.
6. Sunaric-Megevand G, Leuenberger P, Preußner PR. Assessment of the Triggerfish contact lens sensor for measurement of intraocular pressure variations. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92:e414-e415.
7. Mansouri K, Medeiros FA, Tafreshi A, Weinreb RN. Continuous 24-hour monitoring of intraocular pressure patterns with contact lens sensor: Safety, tolerability, and reproducibility in patients with glaucoma. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2012;130:1534-1539.
8. Lorenz K, Korb C, Herzog N, et al. Tolerability of 24-hour intraocular pressure monitoring of a pressure-sensitive contact lens. Journal of Glaucoma. 2013;22:311-316.
(p. 15) GP Insights – Preventing and Managing Scleral Lens Deposits
By Melissa Barnett, OD, FAAO, FSLS; Michael A. Ward, MMSC, FAAO; & Edward S. Bennett, OD, MSEd, FAAO
1. Ward M. Contact Lenses and Makeup Contamination. Contact Lens Spectrum February 2013;28(2):23.
2. Ward M. Oily Contamination on GPs. Contact Lens Spectrum October 2014;29(10):19.
(p. 17) Contact Lens Design & Materials – When a Material Is Not Enough
By David L. Kading, OD, FAAO
1. Nichols JJ, Ziegler C, Mitchell GL, Nichols KK. Self-reported dry eye disease across refractive modalities. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:1911-1914.
(p. 18) Dry Eye Dx and Tx – Lessons from the IWMGD
By William Townsend, OD, FAAO
1. Research in dry eye: report of the Research Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye WorkShop (2007). Ocul Surf. 2007 Apr;5:179-193.
2. Bron AJ, Tomlinson A, Foulks GN, Pepose JS, et al. Rethinking dry eye disease: a perspective on clinical implications. Ocul Surf. 2014 Apr;12(2 Suppl):S1-S31.
3. Nichols KK, Foulks GN, Bron AJ, Glasgow BJ, Dogru M, Tsubota K, Lemp MA, Sullivan DA. The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: executive summary. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Mar 30;52:1922-1929.
4. Geerling G, Tauber J, Baudouin C, et al. The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: report of the subcommittee on management and treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Mar 30;52:2050-2064.
5. Schaumberg DA, Nichols JJ, Papas EB, Tong L, Uchino M, Nichols KK. The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: report of the subcommittee on the epidemiology of, and associated risk factors for, MGD. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Mar 30;52:1994-2005.
6. Novack GD, Howes J, Crockett RS, Sherwood MB. Change in intraocular pressure during long-term use of loteprednol etabonate. J Glaucoma. 1998;7:266–269.
(p. 36) Controversies in Contact Lens Care
By Thomas G. Quinn Jr., OD, MS; Jeffrey J. Walline, OD, PhD; Jeffrey Sonsino, OD; Edward S. Bennett, OD, MSEd; Shalu Pal, OD; Glenda B. Secor, OD; & Randall F. Fuerst, OD
1. Charm J, Cho P. High Myopia-Partial Reduction Ortho-k: A 2-Year Randomized Study. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90:530-539.
2. Chen C, Cho P. Toric orthokeratology for high myopic and astigmatic subjects for myopic control. Clin Exp Optom. 2012;95:103-108.
3. Cho P, Cheung SW. Retardation of myopia in Orthokeratology (ROMIO) study: A 2-Year Randomized Clinical Trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:7077-7085.
4. 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.
5. Santodomingo-Rubido J, Villa-Collar C, Gilmartin B, Gutiérrez-Ortega R. Myopia Control with Orthokeratology Contact Lenses in Spain: refractive and biometric changes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:5060-5065.
6. Walline JJ, Jones LA, Sinnott LT. Corneal reshaping and myopia progression. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93:1181-1185.
7. Hiraoka T, Kakita T, Okamoto F, Takahashi H, Oshika T. Long-term effect of overnight orthokeratology on axial length elongation in childhood myopia: a 5-year follow-up study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:3913-3919.
8. Kakita T, Hiraoka T, Oshika T. Influence of overnight orthokeratology on axial elongation in childhood myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:2170-2174.
9. Aller T, Wildsoet C. Results of a one-year prospective clinical trial (CONTROL) of the use of bifocal soft contact lenses to control myopia progression. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2006;26:8-9.
10. Anstice NS, Phillips JR. Effect of dual-focus soft contact lens wear on axial myopia progression in children. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:1152-1161.
11. Lam CS, Tang WC, Tse DY, Tang YY, To CH. Defocus Incorporated Soft Contact (DISC) lens slows myopia progression in Hong Kong Chinese schoolchildren: a 2-year randomised clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98:40-45.
12. Sankaridurg P, Holden B, Smith E, 3rd, et al. Decrease in rate of myopia progression with a contact lens designed to reduce relative peripheral hyperopia: one-year results. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:9362-67.
13. Walline JJ, Greiner KL, McVey ME, Jones-Jordan LA. Multifocal contact lens myopia control. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90:1207-1214.
14. Berntsen DA, Sinnott LT, Mutti DO, Zadnik K. A randomized trial using progressive addition lenses to evaluate theories of myopia progression in children with a high lag of accommodation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:640-649.
15. Cheng D, Woo GC, Drobe B, Schmid KL. Effect of bifocal and prismatic bifocal spectacles on myopia progression in children: three-year results of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132:258-264.
16. Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial 2 Study Group for the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Progressive-addition lenses versus single-vision lenses for slowing progression of myopia in children with high accommodative lag and near esophoria. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:2749-2757.
17. Edwards MH, Li RW, Lam CS, Lew JK, Yu BS. The Hong Kong progressive lens myopia control study: study design and main findings. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2852-2858.
18. Hasebe S, Nonaka F, Nakatsuka C, Ohtsuki H. Myopia control trial with progressive addition lenses in Japanese schoolchildren: baseline measures of refraction, accommodation, and heterophoria. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2005;49:23-30.
19. Yang Z, Lan W, Ge J, et al. The effectiveness of progressive addition lenses on the progression of myopia in Chinese children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2009;29:41-48.
20. Fulk GW, Cyert LA, Parker DE. A randomized trial of the effect of single-vision vs. bifocal lenses on myopia progression in children with esophoria. Optom Vis Sci. 2000;77:395-401.
21. Chia A, Chua WH, Cheung YB, et al. Atropine for the treatment of childhood myopia: safety and efficacy of 0.5%, 0.1%, and 0.01% doses (Atropine for the Treatment of Myopia 2). Ophthalmology. 2012;119:347-354.
22. Chia A, Chua WH, Wen L, Fong A, Goon YY, Tan D. Atropine for the treatment of childhood myopia: changes after stopping atropine 0.01%, 0.1% and 0.5%. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157:451-457.e1.
23. Wu PC, Yang YH, Fang PC. The long-term results of using low-concentration atropine eye drops for controlling myopia progression in schoolchildren. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2011;27:461-466.
24. Fang PC, Chung MY, Yu HJ, Wu PC. Prevention of myopia onset with 0.025% atropine in premyopic children. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2010;26:341-345.
25. Stapleton F, Edwards K, Keay L, et al. Risk factors for moderate and severe microbial keratitis in daily wear contact lens users. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:1516-1521.
26. Tilia D, Lazon de la Jara P, Zhu H, Naduvilath TJ, Holden BA. The effect of compliance on contact lens case contamination. Optom Vis Sci. 2014;91:262-271.
27. Wu YT, Zhu H, Willcox M, Stapleton F. The effectiveness of various cleaning regimens and current guidelines in contact lens case biofilm removal. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:5287-5292.
28. Lakkis C, Anastasopoulos F, Terry C, Borazjani R. Time course of the development of contact lens case and contact lens contamination. Abstract presented at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, 2009, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
29. Nichols JJ. Contact lenses 2013. Contact Lens Spectrum. 2014 Jan;29:22-28.
30. Kwok LS, Kuznetsov VA, Ho A, Coroneo MT. Prevention of the adverse photic effects of peripheral light-focusing using UV-blocking contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:1501-1507.
31. Walsh, JE, Bergmanson JP, Wallace D, et al. Quantification of the ultraviolet radiation (UVR) field in the human eye in vivo using novel instrumentation and the potential benefits of UVR blocking hydrogel contact lens. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:1080-1085.
32. Green AC, Wallingford SC, McBride, P. Childhood exposure to ultraviolet radiation and harmful skin effects: Epidemiological evidence. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2011;107:349-355
33. Ooi JL, Sharma NS, Papalkar D, et al. Ultraviolet fluorescence photography to detect early sun damage in the eyes of school-aged children. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;146:294–298.
34. Young S, Sands J. Sun and the eye: prevention and detection of light-induced disease. Clin Dermatol. 1998;16:477-485.
35. Carnt N, Evans VE, Naduvialth TJ, et al. Contact lens-related adverse events and the silicone hydrogel lenses and daily wear care system used. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2009;127:1616-1623.
36. Andrasko Corneal Staining Grid. www.StainingGrid.com. Accessed June, 2014.
37. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Contact lens Solutions and Products. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/HomeHealthandConsumer/ConsumerProducts/ContactLenses/ucm062584.htm. Accessed June, 2014.
38. Szczotka-Flynn L, Pearlman E, Ghannoum M. Microbial contamination of contact Llenses, lens care solutions, and their accessories: a literature review. Eye Contact Lens. 2010 Mar;36:116-129.
39. Gray TB, Cursons RT, Sherwan JF, Rose PR. Acanthamoeba, bacterial, and funga contamination of contact lens storage cases. Br J Ophthalmol. 1995 Jun;79:601-605.
40. Devonshire P, Munro FA, Abernethy C, Clark BJ. Microbial contamination of contact lens cases in the west of Scotland. Br J Ophthalmol. 1993;77:41-45.
41. Yung MS, Boost M, Cho P, Yap M. Microbial contamination of contact lenses and lens care accessories of soft contact lens wearers (university students) in Hong Kong. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2007;27:11-21.
42. Willcox MD, Carnt N, Diec J, et al. Contact lens case contamination during daily wear of silicone hydrogels. Optom Vis Sci. 2010;87:456-464.
43. Wu YT, Zhu H, Harmis NY, Iskandar SY, Willcox M, Stapleton F. Profile and frequency of microbial contamination of contact lens cases. Optom Vis Sci. 2010;87:E152-E158.
44. Farber BF, Hsieh HC, Donnenfeld ED, Perry HD, Epstein A, Wolff A. A novel antibiofilm technology for contact lens solutions. Ophthalmology. 1995;102:831-836.
45. Szczotka-Flynn LB, Imamura Y, Chandra J, et al. Increased resistance of contact lens-related bacterial biofilms to antimicrobial activity of soft contact lens care solutions. Cornea. 2009;28:918-926.
46. Dart J. The inside story: why contact lens cases become contaminated. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 1997;20:113-118.
47. Wilson LA, Sawant AD, Ahearn DG. Comparative efficacies of soft contact lens disinfectant solutions against microbial films in lens cases. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109:1155-1157.
48. Santos L, Oliveira R, Oliveira ME, Azeredo J. Lens material and formulation of multipurpose solutions affects contact lens disinfection. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2011;34:179-182.
49. Dart JK, Radford CF, Minassian D, Verma S, Stapleton F. Risk factors for microbial keratitis with contemporary contact lenses: a case-control study. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:1647-654.
50. Dumbleton K, Richter D, Bergenske P, Jones LW. Compliance with lens replacement and the interval between eye examinations. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90:351-358.
51. Ichijima H, Shimamoto S, Ariwaka Y, Muraki K, Cavanagh HD. Compliance study of contact lens wearers in Japan, part 1: internet survey of actual circumstances of lens use. Eye Contact Lens. 2014;40:169-174.
52. Michaud L. For a better understanding of scleral contact lens-related pathophysiology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:6430.
53. Compañ V, Oliveira C, Aguilella-Arzo M, Mollá S, Peixoto-de-Matos SC, González-Méijome JM. Oxygen diffusion and edema with modern scleral rigid gas permeable contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:6421-6429.
54. Schornack MM, Pyle J, Patel SV. Scleral lenses in the management of ocular surface disease. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:1398-1405.
55. Pecego M, Barnett M, Mannis MJ, Durbin-Johnson B. Jupiter Scleral Lenses: the UC Davis Eye Center experience. Eye Contact Lens. 2012;38:179-182.
56. Morgan PB, Woods CA, Tranoudis IG, et al. International Contact Lens Prescribing in 2010. Contact Lens Spectrum. 2011 Jan;26:30-35.
57. Morgan PB, Woods CA, Tranoudis IG, et al. International Contact Lens Prescribing in 2013. Contact Lens Spectrum. 2014 Jan;29:30-35.
58. Henry VA, DeKinder JO. Soft lens material selection. In Bennett ES, Henry VA: Clinical Manual of Contact Lenses (4th ed.), Philadelphia, Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2014:252-269.
59. Hamano H, Watanabe K, Hamano T, Mitsunaga S, Kotani S, Okada A. A study of the complications induced by conventional and disposable contact lenses. CLAO J. 1994;20:103-108.
60. Freeman M, Dubow B, Lopanik R, Quinn TG, et al. A three-year study of the clinical performance of daily disposable contact lenses. Optician. 1997;213:36-45.
61. Nason RJ, Boshnick EL, Cannon WN, Dubow BW, et al. Multisite comparison of contact lens modalities. Daily disposable wear vs. conventional daily wear in successful contact lens wearers. J Am Optom Assoc, 1994;65:774-780
62. Dumbleton K, Woods C, Jones L, Fonn D, Sarwer DB. Patient and practitioner compliance with silicone hydrogel and daily disposable lens replacement in the United States. Eye Contact Lens. 2009;35:164-171.
63. Stapleton F, Keay L, Edwards K, et al. The incidence of contact lens-related microbial keratitis in Australia. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:1655-1662.
64. Cavanagh HD, Robertson DM, Petroll WM, Jester JV. Castroviejo Lecture 2009; 40 years in search of the perfect contact lens. Cornea. 2010;29:1075-1085.
65. Forister JF, Forister EF, Yeung KK, et al. Prevalence of contact lens-related complications: UCLA contact lens study. Eye Contact Lens. 2009;35:176-180.
66. Johnson TJ, Schnider C. Clinical performance and patient preference for hydrogel versus RGP lenses: A crossover study. Int Contact Lens Clin. 1991;18:130-135y.
67. Schein OD, McNally JJ, Katz J, et al. The incidence of microbial keratitis among wearers of a 30-day silicone hydrogel extended-wear contact lens. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:2172-2179.
68. Jalbert I, Sweeney DF, Stapleton F. The effect of long-term wear of soft lenses of low and high oxygen transmissibility on the corneal epithelium. Eye (Lond). 2009;23:1282-1287.
69. Nichols JJ. Contact Lenses 2013. Contact Lens Spectrum. 2014 Jan;29:22-28.
70. Nichols JJ. Contact Lenses 2008. Contact Lens Spectrum. 2009 Jan;24:24-32.
71. Kirschen DG, Hung CC, Nakano TR. Comparison of suppression, stereoacuity, and interocular differences in visual acuity in monovision, and Acuvue Bifocal contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:832-837.
72. Situ P, Du Toit R, Fonn D, Simpson T. Successful monovision contact lens wearers refitted with bifocal contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2003;29:181-184.
73. Richdale K, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. Comparison of multifocal and monovision soft contact lens corrections corrections in patients with low astigmatic presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83:266-273.
74. Benjamin W. Comparing multifocals and monovision. Contact Lens Spectrum. 2007 July;22:35-39.
75. Fernandes PR, Neves HI, Lopes-Ferreira DP, Jorge JM, González-Meijome JM. Adaptation to multifocal monovision contact lens correction. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90:228-235.
76. Rajagopalan AS, Bennett ES, Lakshminurayanan V. Visual performance of subjects wearing presbyopic contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83:611-615.
77. Jain S, Arora I, Azar DT. Success of monovision in presbyopes: review of the literature and potential applications to refractive surgery. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996;40:491-499.
(p. 46) The Scleral Lens Vault – Scleral Lenses and the Limbus
By Gregory W. DeNaeyer, OD, FAAO
1. Hart WM. Adler’s Physiology of the Eye. 9th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby-Year Book, Inc.;1992.
(p. 48) Treatment Plan – Managing Traveler’s Contact Lens-Associated Keratitis
By William L. Miller, OD, MS, PhD, FAAO
1. Donzis PB. Corneal Ulcers from Contact Lenses during Travel to Remote Areas. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:1629-1630.
2. Ukpe FF, Youlios SA, Parekh BJ, Parekh JG. Traveler’s Contact Lens Associated Keratitis (TCLAK): Establishing Preventive and Treatment Guidelines to Close up a Gap in Ophthalmic Care. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:E-Abstract 511.
3. Ukpe FF, Parekh JG, Youlios SA, Parekh BJ. Traveler’s Contact Lens-Associated Keratitis: An Emerging Nemesis. Cataract and Refractive Surgery Today. Nov/Dec 2013. Accessed at http://crstoday.com/2013/12/travelers-contact-lens-associated-keratitis-an-emerging-nemesis.