Compatibility of two new silicone hydrogel contact lenses with three soft contact lens multipurpose solutions

• Published in: Ophthalmic & physiological optics Vol. 28; no. 4; pp. 373 - 381
• Main Authors: Santodomingo-Rubido, Jacinto, Barrado-Navascués, Eva, Rubido-Crespo, María-José, Sugimoto, Keiji, Sawano, Tadashi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01-07-2008; Blackwell
• Subjects: Adult; Biological and medical sciences; compatibility; Contact Lens Solutions; Contact Lenses, Hydrophilic; Cornea - anatomy & histology; corneal staining; Cross-Over Studies; Eye and associated structures. Visual pathways and centers. Vision; Female; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Humans; Hydrogel, Polyethylene Glycol Dimethacrylate; Male; Medical sciences; multipurpose solutions; Ophthalmology; Patient Satisfaction; Prospective Studies; Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects); silicone hydrogels; Silicones; Single-Blind Method; Staining and Labeling; symptoms; Vertebrates: nervous system and sense organs; Soft lens; Cornea; Contact lens; silicone hydrogels; Instrumentation therapy; corneal staining; symptoms; Symptomatology; Hydrogel; Ophthalmology; multipurpose solutions; Siloxane polymer; compatibility; Solution
• ISSN: 0275-5408; 1475-1313
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00573.x

Purpose:  The purpose of this study is to assess corneal staining and subjective symptom ratings with six different silicone hydrogel contact lens/multipurpose solution combinations, including the recently launched Menicon PremiO silicone hydrogel contact lens, after the first night of soaking the lenses in solution.
Methods:  This study is a prospective, single‐centre, subject‐masked, contralateral, crossover, daily wear clinical trial in which subjects were randomly fitted in the morning with a different lens/solution combination in each eye, asked to wear the lenses for the whole day (at least 12 h), soak each of the lenses overnight in one of the test solutions and insert the lenses on the following morning. Subjects were asked to come on that morning for assessment of corneal staining and subjective ratings. All subjects repeated this procedure on another two occasions in order to collect the results of the six different lens/solution combinations: Menicon PremiO/MeniCare Soft; Menicon PremiO/Complete 10; Menicon PremiO/OptiFree Express; Acuvue Oasys/MeniCare Soft; Acuvue Oasys/Complete 10; Acuvue Oasys/OptiFree Express.
Results:  Menicon PremiO lenses were associated with a lower level of corneal staining overall, and in the nasal and temporal locations, compared with Acuvue Oasys lenses (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in corneal staining between solutions (p > 0.05). An overall rate of solution‐induced corneal staining per eye of 12% was found. Symptoms were very similar among the six different lens/solution combinations (p > 0.05).
Discussion:  The lower level of corneal staining found with Menicon PremiO lenses compared with Acuvue Oasys lenses might be attributed to material, surface and design differences between lens types. The overall rate of solution‐induced corneal staining and symptomatology found between the different lens/solutions combinations is consistent with previous studies.