Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis How Long Till I Can Wear Contacts Again
J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2017 Apr-Jun; 12(2): 193–204.
Contact Lens-related Complications: A Review
Fateme Alipour
Heart Research Middle, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Saeed Khaheshi
Eye Inquiry Heart, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran Academy of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Mahya Soleimanzadeh
Eye Research Centre, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Somayeh Heidarzadeh
Eye Inquiry Middle, Farabi Center Infirmary, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Sepideh Heydarzadeh
Eye Inquiry Eye, Farabi Eye Infirmary, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Received 2016 Aug 10; Accepted 2017 January xxx.
Abstruse
Contact lens-related problems are mutual and can result in severe sight-threatening complications or contact lens drop out if non addressed properly. We systematically reviewed the most important and the most common contact lens-related complications and their diagnosis, epidemiology, and management according to the literature published in the concluding xx years.
Keywords: Complication, Contact Lens, Contact-lens-related Peripheral Ulcer, Discomfort, Behemothic Papillary Conjunctivitis, Infectious Keratitis, Superior Epithelial Arcuate Lesion
INTRODUCTION
The utilise of contact lenses is very common,[1,2] and constitutes a profitable manufacture.[3] The size of the global market of contact lenses is expected to achieve 12,476.three one thousand thousand U.s.a. dollars by 2020, at a growth rate of six.7%.[four]
Contact lenses are prescribed for the direction of refractive errors that cannot be addressed by spectacles such as aphakia,[5,6,7,viii,9,10] keratoconus,[6,7,8,eleven,12,13,fourteen,15,16,17,eighteen] irregular cornea,[19,20,21,22] and high anisometropia.[vi,7,19,20,23] In addition, they tin can be used for the direction of elementary refractive errors as alternatives to glasses. Moreover, contact lenses tin exist prescribed for the direction of dry eye in Stevens-Johnson syndrome[19,23,24,25,26,27] or Sjogren syndrome,[xiv,27,28,29,30] post refractive surgery rehabilitation,[11,17,21,31,32,33] and persistent epithelial defect.[31,34,35,36] Furthermore, the cosmetic usage of contact lenses is very popular nowadays.[37]
Contact lenses have improved the quality of life non merely by correcting refractive errors just as well by providing better appearance and less brake in activities.[38] Unfortunately, contact lenses can cause complications that are disappointing for the patients, forcing them to switch from habitual mode of vision correction to other modalities if possible,[39] which are non always simple or complication-free.
The purpose of this review is to provide a better concept of agreement contact lens-related issues. Addressing contact lens problems properly can prevent contact lens drop-out and lessen the consequences.
METHODS
PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for the related articles published from 1995 to 2015 having the keywords "contact lens" and "discomfort" or "complication" in their title, resulting in 819 manufactures (later exclusion of duplicated and non-related manufactures). After reviewing the total texts of the articles, 50 articles were chosen. For completing manuscript to be drafted properly, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched once more with more than detailed keywords. Finally, 139 articles published between 1982 and 2015 were used for writing this manuscript.
RESULTS
Contact lens-related problems are listed in Table 1. We discuss below the main complications in details.
Table 1
Contact lens-related problems
Contact Lens Discomfort
Definitions
According to the Tear Film & Ocular Surface Order (TFOS), contact lens discomfort is a condition characterized past episodic or persistent agin ocular sensations related to lens wear, either with or without visual disturbance, resulting from reduced compatibility betwixt the contact lens and the ocular environs. This complication can lead to decreased wearing time or even discontinuation of contact lens vesture.[40]
These symptoms should occur later the initial menses of accommodation and resolve or diminish with contact lens removal. Moreover, CLD may accompany concrete signs such every bit conjunctival hyperemia or ocular surface staining, or may be diagnosed based just on the patient's subjective study of the discomfort.[40,41]
Epidemiology
The CLD prevalence ranges between 23 and 94% amongst patients who have symptoms attributable to contact lenses. The burden of the problem seems to be loftier. This wide range tin be due to differences in the assessment tools, severity of the stages assessed, sampling methods, inherent factors of the studied population, and fourth dimension frame betwixt studies.[42,43,44,45]
Factors causing CLD can be either contact lens-related or ecology. Contact lens-related factors tin can exist associated with (1) material (lubricity, water content), (two) design (edge, base curve, asphericity), (iii) fit, (4) wearing schedule, and (v) intendance system (chemical limerick, regimen).
Environmental factors[42,43,44] can be subdivided into (1) ocular surface status (dry middle, tear composition), (2) external environs (humidity, air current, temperature), (3) occupational factors (computer, calorie-free, altitude, and other occupational related changes in the external surroundings), (iv) medications, (5) compliance, and other factors (historic period, gender, groundwork ocular or systemic diseases, psychiatric and psychological weather). Out of these, young age, female gender, tear quality and quantity, seasonal allergies, psychological factors, the use of some medications, room humidity, and air current and blink-charge per unit altering activities are clinically related to CLD.[42]
Direction
The goal is to provide comfortable daily wearing time that suffices for the patients' desired activities; this varies from patient to patient.
The evaluation of predisposing factors for CLD should preferably be started at the beginning visit and fit. Therefore, meticulous history taking, slit lamp examination, and tear assessment tests for estimating the risk of CLD are required. Potential atmospheric condition that can cause CLD, such equally blepharitis, meibomian gland dysfunction, and dry centre, should be addressed earlier starting contact lens use.
Patients who are inherently or occupationally prone to CLD should be brash to use more eye-friendly contact lenses and lens intendance systems. CLD can be prevented in these highly susceptible patients by daily wearing schedule, more than frequently disposable lenses (preferably daily disposable), hydrogen peroxide based care system being more compliant to lens care, and frequent use of lubricating drops patients.
For symptomatic patients, a thorough history taking may reveal the underlying crusade of CLD. History should include the timing and class of the symptoms during the mean solar day, lens type, care system, wearing pattern and replacement schedule, compliance behavior, coexisting ocular or systemic diseases including allergy, ocular and systemic medications, and personal and environmental take a chance factors. Any coexisting ocular and systemic diseases unrelated to contact lens use should be treated appropriately. For example, ocular medicamentosa, which is an ocular irritation caused by chemical toxicity of topically practical eye drops (especially those with preservative) or cosmetics, tin be confused with CLD. Conjunctival diseases such as pterygium, pinguecula, and conjunctivochalasis tin cause ocular discomfort and are aggravated by contact lens use. Corneal diseases such as Salzmann nodules, corneal dystrophies, and recurrent corneal erosion (due to previous trauma or corneal dystrophies) may cause symptoms that mimic CLD. Careful slit lamp test tin reveal these pathologies. If the patient with these anatomical/pathological conditions wishes to continue wearing contact lenses, these problems should be treated either medically or surgically.
The modifiable environmental factors should be addressed first. Increasing room humidity, avoiding existence in the direction of windy air conditioners, intermittently looking at far objects during computer work, and adjusting the angle of gaze at the computer monitor are simple modifications that can help.[46,47]
One of the most frequent background causes of CLD is the patients' non-compliant beliefs. Poor compliance with the frequency of contact lens replacement should be addressed by educating the patients and helping them with reminders such equally mobile applications.[48] Poor compliance with care organisation should be addressed past re-educating the patient and emphasizing the effect of lens rubbing. Modifiable ecology and occupational factors should be controlled.[49,50] Using lubricating heart drops can solve the CLD in the mild stages of the problem.[51]
Effective treatments of dry eye diseases with modalities such as punctual plugs have been proposed.[52] Ocular antihistamine drops such equally olopatadine and epinastine can decrease CLD symptoms in patients with history of allergic conjunctivitis, fifty-fifty in the absence of symptoms,[52,53] while oral omega-iii fatty acids can decrease dry eye symptoms.[51]
For the patients who remain symptomatic despite the above-mentioned modifications, a trial of changing the lens type to another with a improve surface wettability, and more frequent replacement schedule preferably daily disposable can be helpful.[54,55]
Corneal Neovascularization
Definition
Formation of new vessels basically establish in capillaries and venules of the pericorneal plexus, which progress to the corneal stroma [Figure one].
Corneal neovascularization in a soft contact lens wearer.
Prevalence
It is reported that 10–thirty% of patients diagnosed with corneal neovascularization wear contact lens,[56,57] while corneal neovascularization develops in i-20% of contact lens users.[58] Patients who use rigid gas permeable (RGP) or poly-methyl methacrylate (PMMA) lenses have a lower rate of neovascularization.[59] A college prevalence has been reported in relation to soft contact lenses (SCL), especially in extended wearers.[56,59]
Risk factors
Intrinsic lens parameters including material properties (oxygen transmissibility) have an impact on the development of corneal neovascularization.[lx] High myopia and astigmatism can probably influence the peripheral thickness of hydrogel SCL, which decreases peripheral oxygen transmissibility and enhances peripheral mechanical friction. Improper lens-corneal alignment, due to exceedingly flat or steep cornea, tin can issue in peripheral hypoxic or mechanical trauma in SCL wearers.[60,61] Equally the bachelor base curves for soft contact lenses is express, the problem of poor lens fittingis non surprising.[60]
Other causes for corneal neovascularization include canker simplex stromal keratitis and corneal transplantation. Indeed, contact lenses are oftentimes used to accost the refractive errors induced by herpetic corneal scars and are themselves associated with increased prevalence of herpetic attacks;[62] therefore, contact lens practitioners should be enlightened of recurrent corneal herpetic ulcers and address them promptly. The hazard for corneal neovascularization in the post-penetrating keratoplasty condition without active inflammation increases in the presence of (1) suture knots in the host stroma, (2) active blepharitis, or (3) a large recipient bed.[63] Therefore, the possible role of the contact lens, especially poor fit, in the development of corneal neovascularization should be considered in these patients.
Direction
Exchanging the lens with a more oxygen-permeable contact lens, changing wearing schedule from extended clothing to daily wear, switching to RGP lenses instead of soft lenses, and discontinuing contact lenses in cases of agile progressive corneal new vessels are recommended.[56,60] Anti-angiogenic therapy of the cornea (subconjunctival or intrastromal), also every bit corticosteroids and not-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents, can help in cases with active neovascularizations that may endanger the survival of corneal graft or ocular surface health.[64,65] Laser photocoagulation of new vessels, photodynamic therapy, electrocoagulation, and stalk cell transplant are surgical interventions recommended in severe cases.[66,67,68,69,70]
Contact Lens-related Keratitis
Contact lens-related peripheral ulcer
Definition
CLPU is characterized by epithelium excavation and infiltration and an intact bowman layer, in contrast to corneal ulcers. Typically, CLPU and corneal ulcers are differentiated past clinical features rather than histological test. Microbial keratitis is more acute and severe, although overlapped characteristics may cause misdiagnosis. CLPU presents with mild and localized conjunctival injection, and focal infiltration usually less than 1.v mm, ever round or slightly oval in shape, white or white-greyness, located at the peripheral cornea. Unlike microbial keratitis,[71,72] CLPU may be devoid of epithelial defects or nowadays with punctuate epithelial erosions [Effigy 2].
Contact lens-related peripheral ulcer.
Cause
In animal models, CLPU is suggested to occur in the presence of live bacteria (eastward.g., Staphylococcus aureus) and corneal epithelial erosion is necessary. In this theory, bacterial toxins and immunogenic agents that enter via corneal abrasions may crusade inflammation, leading to infiltration.[73,74] CLPU is more than common in extended wear lenses, and its rate is increased in clan with silicone hydrogel lenses.[72]
Incidence
In symptomatic patients, the incidence of CLPU for daily wearable silicone hydrogel lenses is 2–three%, while it increases to two–6% with extended wear schedules. In asymptomatic patients, CLPU incidence in daily wearable and extended wear silicone hydrogel lenses is 7–twenty% and six–25%, respectively.[75]
Management
Typically, CLPUs backslide spontaneously after discontinuation of the contact lens use. Steroid or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drops are rarely prescribed, in instance microbial keratitis is not suspected.[71]
Microbial Keratitis
Definition
Active inflammation of the cornea caused by microorganisms such every bit bacteria, viruses, or parasites related to contact lens clothing, which is its most important take chances factor.[76,77]
Causes
Keratitis can occur in case of contact lens induced hypoxia, microtrauma, and contamination of the contact lens or contact lens solution. Straight inoculation of microorganisms into the middle when wearing contact lens with dirty hands can also cause keratitis. The run a risk can be increased up to 20 times with extended wearing schedules, which increase corneal hypoxia.[78] Mechanical microtrauma to the corneal epithelium, represented by punctuate epithelial erosions, has been associated with silicone hydrogel contact lenses despite their higher oxygen permeability. The broken epithelial barrier tin can be a serious risk gene for developing infectious keratitis.[79,80]
Direction
Infectious keratitis can be finer prevented past proper lens intendance. Information technology is the responsibility of contact lens practitioners to educate patients, verify their compliance, and provide them with educational materials. Using opportunities such as weblogs, emails, social networks, and mobile applications for this purpose should be encouraged. If an infectious keratitis occurs despite these measures, it becomes the first priority to (1) eradicate the offensive organism, (2) control the inflammation to prevent disease progression and save the globe and sight, (3) provide appropriate anti-microbial agents, (4) suit the treatment plan when necessary by closely monitoring the course of the disease, and (5) proceed to surgical interventions if necessary. Situations such as impending corneal perforation, progressing to scleritis or endophthalmitis, which are unresponsive to maximum medical treatments, must be managed surgically.
It should be highlighted that severe cases such as those involving the key role of the cornea, ulcers >3 mm in size, ulcers in immunocompromised patients such as those suffering from diabetes or using corticosteroid or immunosuppressive drugs, ane-eyed patients, ambitious progression, resistance to initial treatment, and suspicious fungal or acanthamoebal infections must be referred to an ophthalmologist/ophthalmology hospital adept in managing infectious keratitis.
Bacterial Keratitis
Incidence
The estimate yearly incidence is 2 per x,000 contact lens wearers, depending on the blazon of lens and wearing programme, with a range between one.two (95% coefficient index [CI], 1.i–ane.five) for diurnal wear RGP lenses and 25.4 (95% CI, 14.6–29.5) for extended wear of silicon hydrogel lenses.,[76,77] reports from 1999.[81] A confounding factor might be the approval for over-night wearing of the new generations of SCLs, which encourages contact lens wearers to extend the wearing schedule.
The reports on the most frequent causative organisms are not consistent,[82] although Gram-negative organisms are suggested (>70%, Effigy iii).[76,77,79,lxxx,81]
Bacterial keratitis in a miniscleral lens wearer patient.
Management
The contact lens should exist removed in whatsoever suspected keratitis. Smear and civilisation should be provided separately from the infiltration site, contact lens, and lens instance. If the clinical picture cannot easily differentiate betwixt fungal and acanthamoeba keratitis, confocal corneal scan should be considered.[83] Broad-spectrum antibody therapy should be started to cover all possible Gram-negative and gram-positive microorganisms. Moreover, attention should exist paid toward the most possible organisms, based on the smear results and clinical picture. Antibiotics can be adjusted co-ordinate to the culture and antibiogram results. Monotherapy with topical fluoroquinolones may be sufficient in small peripheral infiltrations. However, more aggressive therapy with fortified topical antibiotics and loading dose with admission or daily follow-ups should be considered in more severe cases. The option of the antibiotics varies from middle to eye, based on the microbial resistance pattern, epidemiology of the keratitis, and drug availability.[84]
Acanthamoeba Keratitis
Definition
Protozoal infection of the centre, principally caused past using contaminated contact lenses or lens solutions. Free-living amoebae of the genus Acanthamoeba are the causal agents of this severe sight-threatening infection of the cornea [Effigy 4].
Prevalence
In the The states, an estimated 85% of AK cases are related to contact lenses. In adult countries, the incidence of AK is about 1–33 cases per million contact lens wearers.[85] Indeed, almost 80% of AK cases are associated with soft contact lenses. Although simply 12% of AK cases have been attributed to RGP lenses, at least a part of this divergence might exist related to lower prevalence of RGP lens use compared with soft lenses.[86] Nonetheless, these figures should not encourage RGP wearers to be less obsessed with their lens care.
Risk factors
Contact lens wear is the main take a chance factor for AK, which should be considered in whatsoever suspicious keratitis in contact lens wearers. Patients with AK can presumably experience pain associated with photophobia, ring-like stromal infiltrate, epithelial defect, radial perineuritis, and hat edema.[86] The clinical picture varies at dissimilar stages of the disease and the classical ring-shaped infiltration is seen in avant-garde stages. Diagnosis of AK requires confocal scan of the cornea or special civilisation and staining techniques. Delayed diagnosis results in deeper invasion, lower response to treatment, and poorer visual outcomes.[87] Usually, atypical amoebae gain access to the lens instance through tap water or air, swiftly grow to high densities in the lens if the example is not cleaned correctly and regularly, and after attach to the lens and infect the eye. Wearers of SCLs who use multipurpose solutions are at greater risks given that acanthamoeba sticks particularly well to the hydrophilic plastic of these lenses.[86] Additionally, soft lenses are the most unremarkably used, as well by occasional wearers (e.g., one time a week for sport) or corrective colored lenses for social events. Indeed, these patterns are risk factors for poor compliance to lens care.[88]
For prophylaxis of any kind of infectious keratitis including AK, the use of tap water is forbidden, the lens instance should be cleaned with hand rubbing and subsequently air dried, contact lenses should be cleaned and kept by using a proper cleaning method, and the lens cases must be exchanged at least every three months (preferably monthly).[89] Many multipurpose solutions have added anti-acanthamoeba agents such as polyhexamethylenebiguanide (PHMB), though their effectiveness in the clinical setting needs to be documented. The best method of disinfection remains the ii-step hydrogen peroxide systems. Moreover, heat disinfection is highly effective in eradication of the acanthamoeba parasite.[xc]
Management
In the case of suspicious AK based on the clinical setting, confocal corneal scan and appropriate culture media (e.m., non-nutrient agar with bacterial overlay or buffered charcoal-yeast extract agar) and staining methods (e.g., acridine orange, calcofluor white, or indirect immunofluorescence antibody) are recommended. Currently, AK treatment is based on topical antimicrobial agents that can attain high concentrations at the infection site.[89] Because the presence of a cyst grade in acanthamoeba, which is totally resistant to therapy, a combined therapy is advisable.[91,92] Chlorhexidine and PHMB are considered the about effective drugs for treating AK infections; particularly when combined, they are effective confronting both cysts and trophozoites.[86,93] Other medications such as neomycin, paromomycin, voriconazole, miconazole, and imidazoles/triazoles family drugs are as well effective confronting acanthamoeba. Failure to response to medical treatment necessitates surgical interventions such as corneal graft.
Fungal Keratitis
Definition
A sight-threatening complication of contact lenses, characterized by a grayish white infiltration with feathery borders and deep infiltration. Satellite lesions as a hallmark sign may be present, while hypopyon is not uncommon [Figure 5].[94,95] In addition, the diagnosis is confirmed past microbiological tests.
Confocal biomicroscopy can be used to distinguish these infections from other causes and to follow the response to treatment.[94,95]
Incidence
In some countries such as India and Nepal, fungal keratitis are the majority of microbial keratitis.[95,96,97] In 21% of the patients with fungal keratitis, contact lens vesture has been documented;[98] whereas this rate was reported to be 10% elsewhere.[99] Fungal pathogens have been found in upward to 4.eight% of contact lens associated keratitis.[98,100] Candida, Fusarium, and Aspergillus are the most commonly isolated organism.[101,102]
A worldwide outbreak of fungal keratitis in 2006 has been associated with the solution, ReNuMoistureLoc.[102] The charge per unit of fusarium keratitis decreased after recollect of this product; however, an increased number of contact lens-related fungal keratitis has been reported in 2007 & 2008, equally demonstrated in 78 eyes of fungal keratitis collected from 1999 to 2008.[103]
Risk factors
Contact lens habiliment was the leading take a chance gene for the fungal keratitis, peculiarly those caused by yeast-like fungi.[94] Moreover, extended wear schedules increase this risk.[98] Indeed, the gamble is highest in extended wearable of hydrogel lenses compared with silicone hydrogel, while RGP contact lenses take the lowest risk. Other take a chance factors include trauma specially with vegetative material, topical steroids and underlying systemic diseases.[97,101]
Direction
Topical medications ordinarily used in fungal keratitis include natamycin (5%), amphotericin B (0.15–0.thirty%), topical voriconazole (1%), and miconazole (ane%).(101) In deep infiltrative cases, a systemic therapy may be added.
In the cases that do not reply or poorly respond to medical therapy and in patients who suffer from severe thinning impending to perforation, surgical interventions are required. Surgical methods range from debridement and superficial keratectomy in small lesions to penetrating keratoplasty in large lesions.[94,104]
Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis
Definition
Giant papillary conjunctivitis, too referred to as contact lens-induced papillary conjunctivitis (CLPC), is i of the nigh common contact lens-related adverse effects.[105] Patients commonly complain of irritation, redness, itching, decreased lens tolerance, excessive lens movements (especially superior displacement), and increased mucous discharge. Hyperemia and papillary reaction larger than 0.3 mm are remarkable in upper tarsal conjunctiva.[106,107,108]
Incidence
A CLPC incidence rate of i.five%[109] to 47.v%[110] has been reported, with an incidence of 4.6% for wearers of beginning generation silicone hydrogels.[111] The prevalence of CLPC is higher in patients using silicone hydrogel lenses compared with those wearing hydrogel lenses,[112,113] probably equally a consequence of greater mechanical irritation caused by relatively loftier modulus silicone hydrogel lenses.[114] Moreover, a decrease in CLPC rate has been seen in disposable lens users.[107]
Risk factors
CLPC has been associated with certain lens types and lens materials,[112] and is seen more often with soft contact lenses (85%) compared with rigid contact lenses (15%),[112,115,116,117] Mechanical trauma may play a part in the etiology of this complexity.[117] Indeed, a history of allergy and atopy may be nowadays in many cases of CLPC.[106]
Management
It is recommended to consider the possibility of this complication in every visit. Detecting and managing the trouble in early stages, even in asymptomatic cases, usually event in the power to prevent lens driblet out. Adherence to lens care recommendations and frequent employ of lubricating drops sometimes resolve the problem in its early stages. In both localized and generalized forms of CLPC, it is advisable to discontinue lens wear until signs and symptoms subside, and/or change to a different lens. If symptoms do non resolve, irresolute to a daily disposable or daily wear schedule can exist useful. In the generalized forms, mast cell stabilizers (sodium cromoglycate two%, ketotifenfumarate 0.05%, levocabastine hydrochloride 0.025%, or olopatadine HCL 0.one%) may be used to manage persistent symptomatic and recurrent events.[106,108,118,119]
Superior Epithelial Arcuate Lesion
Definition
First characterized in the 1970s, SEALs are corneal complications related to SCL clothing that have also been known as epithelial splits or superior arcuate keratopathy. The lesions occur in the superior cornea, within near ii mm of the superior limbus, betwixt the limbus and the contact lens rim. This lesion tin be detected via slit lamp exam of the cornea with the eyelid wide open. Information technology is ordinarily a white or opalescent lesion bearing an epithelial defect, which tin be confirmed using fluorescein staining. An irregular shaped epithelial defect surrounded past a superficial and punctate staining is characteristic. Moreover, SCL wearers with SEALs are typically asymptomatic, admitting some of them can suffer from a mild foreign trunk sensation. SEALs ordinarily present within the first eight weeks of wearing new or replacement lenses. It can occur in high and low h2o content SCLs, with daily and extended clothing schedules.[120,121,122]
Recurrence can occur in newly replaced lenses, both of an identical or new design. SEAL has not been reported in relation to RGP or PMMA lenses. Although silicone hydrogel lenses eliminate contact lens complications related to hypoxia, other physical conditions, such as SEAL and papillary conjunctivitis, still arise. SEALs can happen much after with high DK lenses.[122]
Incidence
The incidence of SEAL in the SCL wearing population is obviously low (0.2–8%). Continuous wear, including high DK/t silicon hydrogel lenses can probably event in higher incidence of SEAL in the contact lens wearing population. The incidence of SEAL has been roughly the aforementioned betwixt extended wear conventional hydrogel lenses (0.nine–four.0%) and continuous habiliment with first generation silicone hydrogel lenses (0.2–four.5%).[120,121] Moreover, first generation silicone hydrogel lenses showed a higher incidence of complications than the second generation lenses when they were worn on a daily wearable basis. Comparison the results of diverse studies, the reported incidence of SEALs seems to be greater with extended wear than with daily wear.[121]
Take chances factor
The combination of lens design, substance and surface properties, and corneal shape are the major parameters for developing SEAL. Patients' factors include male gender, presbyopia, tight upper lids, and steep cornea. Lens-related contributing factors include lathe cutting hydrogel lenses, lenses made of high rigidity or thick materials, monocurve lenses, or plus design lenses.[121]
Management
The patient should stop wearing lenses until resolution of the staining and whatsoever infiltration (1–7 days). Subsequently, patients can use the lenses they had been wearing earlier or identical fresh lenses. Notwithstanding, if the SEAL recurs, a different lens (in substance and/or design) should be used.[122] All patients should be checked accurately because the loftier risk of recurrence and the asymptomatic nature of the lesion. If recurrence occurs afterward changing lens fabric or pattern, soft lenses should exist replaced by RGP lenses. Withdrawing contact lens wear temporarily for i–ii days is commonly acceptable for the resolution of the lesion in the bulk of cases.[120] In conclusion, co-ordinate to our review on the well-nigh common and/or of import contact lens-related complications past referring to their definition, risk factors, prevalence, and management, these complications are the main cause for contact lens withdrawal. Some complications such every bit infectious keratitis are sight-threatening. Although this complexity is non common, its impact makes it a necessity to be considered. Other complications such as discomfort are more mutual and, although have little to no effect on vision or eye wellness, should exist considered seriously due to their high impact on the contact lens market place. Contact lens practitioners must empower themselves by staying updated. 132
Financial Back up and Sponsorship
Nix.
Conflicts of Interest
At that place are no conflicts of involvement.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the valuable participation of Dr. Mohammad Soleimani, Assistant Professor at the Emergency Department, Farabi Eye Hospital, who provided the images for fungal and acanthamoebal keratitis from his own archive.
REFERENCES
1. Fonn D. Targeting contact lens induced dryness and discomfort: What properties will make lenses more than comfortable. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84:279–285. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
two. Barr J. Almanac written report. Contact lens spectrum January 2005. 2004 [Google Scholar]
4. Contact Lenses Market place Size, Share, Industry Report, 2020. Radiant Insights Inc. 2015 [Google Scholar]
v. Berkowitsch A. Cosmetic haptic contact lens. J Am Optom Assoc. 1984;55:277–279. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Tan DTH, Pullum KW, Buckley RJ. Medical applications of scleral contact lenses: ii.Gas-permeable scleral contact lenses. Cornea. 1995;14:130–137. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Tan DTH, Pullum KW, Buckley RJ. Medical applications of scleral contact lenses: 1.A retrospective analysis of 343 cases. Cornea. 1995;14:121–129. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Pullum KW, Buckley RJ. A study of 530 patients referred for rigid gas permeable scleral contact lens assessment. Cornea. 1997;16:612–622. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Schein OD, Rosenthal P, Ducharme C. A gas-permeable scleral contact lens for visual rehabilitation. Am J Ophthalmol. 1990;109:318–322. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
x. Aasuri MK, Venkata N, Preetam P, Rao NT. Management of pediatric aphakia with Silsoft contact lenses. CLAO Journal. 1999;25:209–212. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xi. Baran I, Bradley JA, Alipour F, Rosenthal P, Le H-G, Jacobs DS. PROSE handling of corneal ectasia. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2012;35:222–227. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Dalton K, Sorbara L. Plumbing fixtures an MSD (mini scleral pattern) rigid contact lens in advanced keratoconus with INTACS. Cont Lens Anterior Center. 2011;34:274–281. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Ortenberg I, Behrman S, Geraisy West, Barequet IS. Wearing time equally a measure out of success of scleral lenses for patients with irregular astigmatism. Centre Contact Lens. 2013;39:381–384. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Visser E-S, Van der Linden BJ, Otten HM, Van der Lelij A, Visser R. Medical applications and outcomes of bitangential scleral lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90:1078–1085. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
fifteen. Vreugdenhil West, Geerards AJ, Vervae CJ. A new rigid gas-permeable semi-scleral contact lens for treatment of corneal surface disorders. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 1998;21:85–88. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Jagadeesh D, Mahadevan R. Visual performance with changes in eccentricity in PROSE device: A case report. J Optom. 2014;7:108–110. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Romero-Jiménez M, Flores-RodrÃguez P. Utility of a semi-scleral contact lens design in the management of the irregular cornea. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2013;36:146–150. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Abdalla YF, Elsahn AF, Hammersmith KM, Cohen EJ. Synergeyes lenses for keratoconus. Cornea. 2010;29:5–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Arumugam AO, Rajan R, Subramanian G, Mahadevan R. PROSE for irregular corneas at a tertiary heart care eye. Eye Contact Lens. 2014;forty:71–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
twenty. Pullum KW, Whiting MA, Buckley RJ. Scleral contact lenses: The expanding role. Cornea. 2005;24:269–277. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Lee JC, Chiu GB, Bach D, Bababeygy SR, Irvine J, Heur Yard. Functional and visual improvement with prosthetic replacement of the ocular surface ecosystem scleral lenses for irregular corneas. Cornea. 2013;32:1540–1543. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Alipour F, Jabarvand Behrouz M, Samet B. Mini-scleral lenses in the visual rehabilitation of patients after penetrating keratoplasty and deep lamellar anterior keratoplasty. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2015;38:54–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Foss AJ, Trodd TC, Sprint JK. Electric current indications for scleral contact lenses. CLAO J. 1994;20:115–118. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Rosenthal P, Cotter J. The Boston Scleral Lens in the direction of astringent ocular surface disease. Ophthalmol Clin Due north Am. 2003;sixteen:89–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Romero-Rangel T, Stavrou P, Cotter J, Rosenthal P, Baltatzis South, Foster CS. Gas-permeable scleral contact lens therapy in ocular surface disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:25–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Tappin MJ, Pullum KW, Buckley RJ. Scleral contact lenses for overnight wear in the management of ocular surface disorders. Centre. 2001;fifteen:168–172. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Alipour F, Kheirkhah A, Jabarvand Behrouz M. Use of mini scleral contact lenses in moderate to astringent dry out eye. Cont Lens Inductive Eye. 2012;35:272–276. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Rosenthal P, Croteau A. Fluid-ventilated, gas-permeable scleral contact lens is an effective option for managing severe ocular surface disease and many corneal disorders that would otherwise require penetrating keratoplasty. Eye Contact Lens. 2005;31:130–134. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Dimit R, Gire A, Pflugfelder SC, Bergmanson JP. Patient ocular conditions and clinical outcomes using a PROSE scleral device. Cont Lens Inductive Eye. 2013;36:159–163. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Pullum K, Buckley R. Therapeutic and ocular surface indications for scleral contact lenses. Ocul Surf. 2007;five:xl–49. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Pecego M, Barnett One thousand, Mannis MJ, Durbin-Johnson B. Jupiter scleral lenses: The UC Davis Center Center experience. Centre Contact Lens. 2012;38:179–182. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Segal O, Barkana Y, Hourovitz D, Behrman S, Kamun Y, Avni I, et al. Scleral contact lenses may help where other modalities neglect. Cornea. 2003;22:308–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Ahmed IIK, Breslin CW. Office of the cast soft contact lens in the postoperative laser in situ keratomileusis patient. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27:1932–1936. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Lim P, Ridges R, Jacobs DS, Rosenthal P. Handling of persistent corneal epithelial defect with overnight vesture of a prosthetic device for the ocular surface. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156:1095–1101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Ling JD, Gire A, Pflugfelder SC. PROSE therapy used to minimize corneal trauma in patients with corneal epithelial defects. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;155:615–619. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Ciralsky JB, Chapman KO, Rosenblatt MI, Sood P, Fernandez AGA, Lee MN, et al. Treatment of Refractory persistent corneal epithelial defects: A standardized arroyo using continuous wear PROSE therapy. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2015;23:219–224. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Abdelkader A. Cosmetic soft contact lens associated ulcerative keratitis in Southern Kingdom of saudi arabia. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2014;21:232–235. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Porisch East. Football players' contrast sensitivity comparing when wearing amber sport-tinted or clear contact lenses. Optometry. 2007;78:232–235. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Walker MK, Bergmanson JP, Miller WL, Marsack JD, Johnson LA. Complications and plumbing equipment challenges associated with scleral contact lenses: A review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2016;39:88–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xl. Nichols KK, Redfern RL, Jacob JT, Nelson JD, Fonn D, Forstot SL, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: Report of the definition and classification subcommittee. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:TFOS14–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Efron North, Jones L, Bron AJ, Knop E, Arita R, Barabino S, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: Report of the contact lens interactions with the ocular surface and adnexa subcommittee. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:TFOS98–122. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Dumbleton K, Caffery B, Dogru M, Hickson-Curran South, Kern J, Kojima T, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: Study of the subcommittee on epidemiology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:TFOS20–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. McMonnies CW. How contact lens comfort may be influenced by psychiatric and psychological conditions and mechanisms. Clin Exp Optom. 2014;97:308–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Su SB, Lu CW, Sheen JW, Kuo SC, Guo 60 minutes. Tear secretion dysfunction amidst women workers engaged in light-on tests in the TFT-LCD industry. BMC Public Health. 2006;6:303. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Wolkoff P, Kärcher T, Mayer H. Problems of the "outer eyes" in the function surroundings: An ergophthalmologic approach. J Occup Environ Med. 2012;54:621–631. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. González-Méijome JM, Parafita MA, Yebra-Pimentel Due east, Almeida JB. Symptoms in a population of contact lens and noncontact lens wearers nether unlike ecology conditions. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84:E296–302. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Reddy SC, Depression C, Lim Y, Low L, Mardina F, Nursaleha M. Computer vision syndrome: A study of knowledge and practices in university students. Nepal J Ophthalmol. 2013;5:161–168. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Izquierdo JC, Garcia M, Buxo C, Izquierdo N. Factors leading to the Calculator Vision Syndrome: An outcome at the contemporary workplace. Bol Asoc Med P R. 2003;96:103–110. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Dayer L, Heldenbrand S, Anderson P, Gubbins PO, Martin BC. Smartphone medication adherence apps: Potential benefits to patients and providers. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2013;53:172–181. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50. Dumbleton K, Woods C, Jones L, Richter D, Fonn D. Condolement and vision with silicone hydrogel lenses: Effect of compliance. Optom Vis Sci. 2010;87:421–425. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Tam NK, Pitt WG, Perez KX, Hickey JW, Glenn AA, Chinn J, et al. Prevention and Removal of Lipid Deposits by Lens Care Solutions and Rubbing. Optom Vis Sci. 2014;91:1430–1439. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Brodsky M, Berger WE, Butrus S, Epstein AB, Irkec One thousand. Evaluation of condolement using olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in contact lens wearers compared to placebo using the conjunctival allergen-challenge model. Eye Contact Lens. 2003;29:113–116. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Nichols KK, Morris S, Gaddie IB, Evans D. Epinastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution in contact lens-wearing subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis. Centre Contact Lens. 2009;35:26–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Hickson-Curran S, Spyridon Chiliad, Hunt C, Young M. The use of daily disposable lenses in problematic reusable contact lens wearers. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2014;37:285–291. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. Riley C, Chalmers RL, Pence Northward. The impact of lens option in the relief of contact lens related symptoms and ocular surface findings. Cont Lens Inductive Center. 2005;28:thirteen–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Abdelfattah NS, Amgad Thousand, Zayed AA, Salem H, Elkhanany AE, Hussein H, et al. Clinical correlates of common corneal neovascular diseases: A literature review. Int J Ophthalmol. 2015;eight:182–193. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Papas E. Corneal vascularisation and contact lenses. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2006;81:309–312. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Shah SS, Yeung KK, Weissman BA. Contact lens-related deep stromal vascularization. Int Contact Lens Clin. 1998;25:128–136. [Google Scholar]
59. Liesegang TJ. Physiologic changes of the cornea with contact lens habiliment. CLAO J. 2002;28:12–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Lee DS, Kim MK, Wee WR. Biometric risk factors for corneal neovascularization associated with hydrogel soft contact lens wear in Korean myopic patients. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2014;28:292–297. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Martin R. Corneal conjunctivalisation in long-standing contact lens wearers. Clin Exp Optom. 2007;90:26–thirty. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Mucci JJ, Utz VM, Galor A, Feuer W, Jeng BH. Recurrence rates of herpes simplex virus keratitis in contact lens and non-contact lens wearers. Eye Contact Lens. 2009;35:185–187. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63. Dana M-R, Schaumberg DA, Kowal VO, Goren MB, Rapuano CJ, Laibson PR, et al. Corneal neovascularization subsequently penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 1995;14:604–609. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Hashemian MN, Moghimi S, Kiumehr Due south, Riazi M, Amoli FA. Prevention and treatment of corneal neovascularization: Comparing of different doses of subconjunctival bevacizumab with corticosteroid in experimental rats. Ophthalmic Res. 2009;42:90–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Cursiefen C, Colin J, Dana R, Diaz-Llopis M, Faraj LA, Garcia-Delpech Due south, et al. Consensus statement on indications for anti-angiogenic therapy in the direction of corneal diseases associated with neovascularisation: Outcome of an expert roundtable. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:3–nine. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66. Lim KJ, Wee WR, Lee JH. Handling of corneal neovascularization with argon light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. Korean J Ophthalmol. 1993;7:25–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67. Al-Torbak AA. Photodynamic therapy with verteporfin for corneal neovascularization. Centre Due east Afr J Ophthalmology. 2012;nineteen:185–189. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68. Hassan AA, Ghoneim DF, El-dib AA, Ahmed SA, Abdel-Salam AM. Photothrombosis of Corneal Neovascularization by Photodynamic Therapy Utilizing Verteporfin and Diode Laser. Jo Lasers Med Sci. 2013;four:131–139. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69. Romano Five, Spiteri North, Kaye SB. Angiographic-guided treatment of corneal neovascularization. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133:e143544. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70. Koenig Y, Bock F, Kruse FE, Stock K, Cursiefen C. Angioregressive pretreatment of mature corneal blood vessels before keratoplasty: Fine-needle vessel coagulation combined with anti-VEGFs. Cornea. 2012;31:887–892. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71. Aasuri MK, Venkata Due north, Kumar VM. Differential diagnosis of microbial keratitis and contact lens-induced peripheral ulcer. Eye Contact Lens. 2003;29:S60–S62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72. Grant T, Chong MS, Vajdic C, Swarbrick HA, Gauthier C, Sweeney DF, et al. Contact lens induced peripheral ulcers during hydrogel contact lens vesture. CLAO J. 1998;24:145–151. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73. Wu P, Stapleton F, Willcox M. The causes of and cures for contact lens-induced peripheral ulcer. Eye Contact Lens. 2003;29:S63–S66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74. Jalbert I, Willcox MD, Sweeney DF. Isolation of Staphylococcus aureus from a contact lens at the fourth dimension of a contact lens–induced peripheral ulcer: Example written report. Cornea. 2000;19:116–120. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75. Szczotka-Flynn 50, Chalmers R. Incidence and epidemiologic associations of corneal infiltrates with silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2013;39:49–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76. Schein OD, McNally JJ, Katz J, Chalmers RL, Tielsch JM, Alfonso Due east, et al. The incidence of microbial keratitis amidst wearers of a 30-day silicone hydrogel extended-wear contact lens. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:2172–2179. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77. Seal D, Kirkness C, Bennett H, Peterson M, Group KS. Population-based cohort report of microbial keratitis in Scotland: Incidence and features. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 1999;22:49–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78. Zaidi T, Mowrey-Mckee M, Pier GB. Hypoxia increases corneal cell expression of CFTR leading to increased Pseudomonas aeruginosa bounden, internalization, and initiation of inflammation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:4066–4074. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79. Alarcon I, Tam C, Mun JJ, LeDue J, Evans DJ, Fleiszig SM. Factors impacting corneal epithelial barrier function against Pseudomonas aeruginosa traversal. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:1368–1377. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
lxxx. Fleiszig SMJ. The pathogenesis of contact lens-related keratitis. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83:866–873. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81. Cheng KH, Leung SL, Hoekman HW, Beekhuis WH, Mulder PG, Geerards AJ, et al. Incidence of contact-lens-associated microbial keratitis and its related morbidity. Lancet. 1999;354:181–185. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
82. Rahimi F, Hashemian MN, Khosravi A, Moradi G, Bamdad Southward. Bacterial keratitis in a tertiary eye centre in Iran: A retrospective study. Center East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2015;22:238–244. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83. Narsani AK, Jatoi SM, Khanzada MA, Lohana MK. Etiological diagnosis of microbial keratitis. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2010;20:604–607. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84. Shah VM, Tandon R, Satpathy K, Nayak N, Chawla B, Agarwal T, et al. Randomized clinical written report for comparative evaluation of fourth-generation fluoroquinolones with the combination of fortified antibiotics in the handling of bacterial corneal ulcers. Cornea. 2010;29:751–757. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
86. Lorenzo-Morales J, Khan NA, Walochnik J. An update on Acanthamoeba keratitis: Diagnosis, pathogenesis and handling. Parasite. 2015;22:ten. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
87. Dart JK, Saw VP, Kilvington S. Acanthamoeba keratitis: Diagnosis and treatment update 2009. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;fourteen:487–499. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
88. Radford C, Minassian D, Sprint J. Acanthamoeba keratitis in England and Wales: Incidence, effect, and take a chance factors. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:536–542. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
89. Anger C, Lally JM. Acanthamoeba: A review of its potential to crusade keratitis, current lens care solution disinfection standards and methodologies, and strategies to reduce patient risk. Eye Contact Lens. 2008;34:247–253. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
90. Lim N, Goh D, Bunce C, Xing W, Fraenkel G, Poole TR, et al. Comparison of polyhexamethylene biguanide and chlorhexidine as monotherapy agents in the treatment of Acanthamoeba keratitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145:130–135. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
91. Coulon C, Collignon A, McDonnell G, Thomas 5. Resistance of Acanthamoeba cysts to disinfection treatments used in health care settings. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48:2689–2697. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
92. Marciano-Cabral F, Cabral M. Acanthamoeba spp. as agents of disease in humans. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2003;xvi:273–307. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
93. Ferrari G, Matuska Southward, Rama P. Double-biguanide therapy for resistant Acanthamoeba keratitis. Case Rep Ophthalmol. 2011;2:338–342. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
94. Thomas P, Kaliamurthy J. Mycotic keratitis: Epidemiology, diagnosis and management. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013;xix:210–220. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
95. Ng JK, Fraunfelder FW, Winthrop KL. Review and Update on the Epidemiology, Clinical Presentation, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Fungal Keratitis. Curr Fungal Infect Rep. 2013;seven:293–300. [Google Scholar]
96. Hagan M, Wright E, Newman Thou, Dolin P, Johnson M. Causes of suppurative keratitis in Ghana. Br J Ophthalmol. 1995;79:1024–1028. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
97. Gopinathan U, Garg P, Fernandes M, Sharma S, Athmanathan Due south, Rao GN. The epidemiological features and laboratory results of fungal keratitis: A 10-year review at a referral center intendance center in South India. Cornea. 2002;21:555–559. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
98. Alfonso EC, Miller D, Cantu-Dibildox J, O'Brien TP, Schein OD. Fungal keratitis associated with non-therapeutic soft contact lenses. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;142:154–155. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
99. Ritterband DC, Seedor JA, Shah MK, Koplin RS, McCormick SA. Fungal keratitis at the New York heart and ear infirmary. Cornea. 2006;25:264–267. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
100. Mah-Sadorra JH, Yavuz SGA, Najjar DM, Laibson PR, Rapuano CJ, Cohen EJ. Trends in contact lens–related corneal ulcers. Cornea. 2005;24:51–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
101. Srinivasan One thousand. Fungal keratitis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004;15:321–327. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
102. Iyer SA, Tuli SS, Wagoner RC. Fungal keratitis: Emerging trends and treatment outcomes. Eye Contact Lens. 2006;32:267–271. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
103. Yildiz EH, Abdalla YF, Elsahn AF, Rapuano CJ, Hammersmith KM, Laibson PR, et al. Update on fungal keratitis from 1999 to 2008. Cornea. 2010;29:1406–1411. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
105. Skotnitsky CC, Naduvilath TJ, Sweeney DF, Sankaridurg PR. Two presentations of contact lens-induced papillary conjunctivitis (CLPC) in hydrogel lens wear: Local and general. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83:27–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
106. Elhers WH, Donshik PC. Behemothic papillary conjunctivitis. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;viii:445–449. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
107. Porazinski Advertizing, Donshik PC. Behemothic papillary conjunctivitis in frequent replacement contact lens wearers: A retrospective report. CLAO J. 1999;25:142–147. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
108. Skotnitsky C, Kalliris A, Sankaridurg P, Sweeney D. Contact lens-induced papillary conjunctivitis is either local or full general. Clin Exp Optom. 2000;27:193–195. [Google Scholar]
109. Lamer L. Extended wear contact lenses for myopes: A follow-upwardly study of 400 cases. Ophthalmology. 1983;xc:156–161. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
110. Alemany A, Redal P. Giant papillary conjunctivitis in soft and rigid lens habiliment. Contactologica. 1991;13:14–17. [Google Scholar]
112. Donshik PC. Contact lens chemistry and giant papillary conjunctivitis. Eye Contact Lens. 2003;29:S37–S39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
113. Tan ME, Demirci M, Pearce D, Jalbert I, Sankaridurg P, Willcox MD. Lacrimal Gland, Tear Movie, and Dry Heart Syndromes 3. Springer; 2002. Contact lens-induced papillary conjunctivitis is associated with increased albumin deposits on extended wearable hydrogel lenses; pp. 951–955. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
114. Sorbara 50, Jones L, Williams-Lyn D. Contact lens induced papillary conjunctivitis with silicone hydrogel lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Center. 2009;32:93–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
115. Skotnitsky C, Sankaridurg PR, Sweeney DF, Holden BA. General and local contact lens induced papillary conjunctivitis (CLPC) Clin Exp Optom. 2002;85:193–197. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
116. Stern J, Skotnitsky C, O'Hare N, Tan J, Wong R, Sweeney D, et al. Comparison of the incidence of Contact Lens Papillary Conjunctivitis betwixt high Dk soft CLs worn on a half dozen and 30 dark schedule. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001 [Google Scholar]
117. Jones L, Subbaraman 50, Rogers R, Dumbleton K. Surface treatment, wetting and modulus of silicone hydrogels. Optician. 2006;232:28–34. [Google Scholar]
118. Meisler DM, Berzins UJ, Krachmer JH, Stock EL. Cromolyn treatment of behemothic papillary conjunctivitis. Arch Ophthalmol. 1982;100:1608–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
119. Uchio Due east. Handling of allergic conjunctivitis with olopatadine hydrochloride middle drops. Clin Ophthalmol. 2008;two:525–531. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
120. Holden BA, Stephenson A, Stretton S, Sankaridurg PR, O'Hare N, Jalbert I, et al. Superior epithelial arcuate lesions with soft contact lens wear. Optom Vis Sci. 2001;78:9–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
121. Lin MC, Yeh TN. Mechanical complications induced by silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2013;39:115–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
122. Dumbleton Thou. Noninflammatory silicone hydrogel contact lens complications. Center Contact Lens. 2003;29:S186–S189. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
123. Ramamoorthy P, Sinnott LT, Nichols JJ. Treatment, material, care, and patient-related factors in contact lens-related dry center. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:764–772. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
124. Nichols JJ, Sinnott LT. Tear motion-picture show, contact lens, and patient-related factors associated with contact lens–related dry eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:1319–1328. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
125. Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL, Nichols KK, Chalmers R, Begley C. The operation of the contact lens dry out eye questionnaire as a screening survey for contact lens-related dry eye. Cornea. 2002;21:469–475. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
126. Kitazawa T. Hard contact lens habiliment and the risk of acquired blepharoptosis: A example-command report. Eplasty. 2013;19:e30. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
127. Mimura T, Usui T, Mori M, Yamamoto H, Obata H, Yamagami South, et al. Pinguecula and contact lenses. Eye. 2010;24:1685–1691. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
128. Nichols JJ, Sinnott LT. Tear movie, contact lens, and patient factors associated with corneal staining. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:1127–1137. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
130. Urgacz A, Mrukwa E, Gawlik R. Adverse events in allergy sufferers wearing contact lenses. Postepy Dermatol Alergol. 2015;32:204–209. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
131. Szczotka-Flynn Fifty, Benetz BA, Lass J, Albright M, Gillespie B, Kuo J, et al. The association between mucin balls and corneal infiltrative events during extended contact lens wear. Cornea. 2011;30:535–542. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
132. Pimenides D, Steele C, McGhee C, Bryce I. Deep corneal stromal opacities associated with long term contact lens article of clothing. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80:21–24. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Manufactures from Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Inquiry are provided hither courtesy of Ophthalmic Research Centre
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5423374/
0 Response to "Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis How Long Till I Can Wear Contacts Again"
Post a Comment