Comparative evaluation of Comfilcon A and Senofilcon A bandage contact lenses after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy

Purpose: To evaluate and compare Comfilcon A and Senofilcon A silicone hydrogel contact lenses used as a therapeutic bandage following transepithelial excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Methods: Patients undergoing transepithelial PRK for myopia were prospectively recruited. Included p...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Achyut Mukherjee, Antonis Ioannides, Ioannis Aslanides
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2015-01-01
Series:Journal of Optometry
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888429614000077
_version_ 1818872968513585152
author Achyut Mukherjee
Antonis Ioannides
Ioannis Aslanides
author_facet Achyut Mukherjee
Antonis Ioannides
Ioannis Aslanides
author_sort Achyut Mukherjee
collection DOAJ
description Purpose: To evaluate and compare Comfilcon A and Senofilcon A silicone hydrogel contact lenses used as a therapeutic bandage following transepithelial excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Methods: Patients undergoing transepithelial PRK for myopia were prospectively recruited. Included patients had a Comfilcon A silicone hydrogel lens inserted in one eye, with a Senofilcon A lens in the contralateral eye. Postoperative assessment of subjective pain, epithelial healing and visual recovery was at day 1, 3 and 7. Contact lens factors including centration, movement and deposits were assessed. Results: 48 eyes of 24 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 31 years (SD 11) and mean refractive error −4.5 D (SD 1.8). Mean pain score at day 1 was significantly higher in the Comfilcon group at 4.6 (SD 2.7) vs. 1.5 (SD2.5) in the Senofilcon group (P < 0.005). Mean time to healing was 3.17 days (SD 0.37) in the Comfilcon group, and 3.21 days (SD 0.4) in the Senofilcon group, with no difference in defect size. There was a pronounced central raphe in 1 eye in the Comfilcon group vs. 5 eyes in the Senofilcon group (P = 0.19). Significantly more eyes demonstrated no lens movement in the Senofilcon group (18 vs. 4, P = 0.0001). Conclusion: The variation in material characteristics and lens geometry of different silicone hydrogel lenses affects their clinical characteristics in therapeutic roles. Other factors than oxygen permeability may affect pain and epithelial healing, with superior pain relief from the less permeable Senofilcon lens in this study.
first_indexed 2024-12-19T12:47:14Z
format Article
id doaj.art-6922a0201fa24effac24cb82ef39c4d7
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1888-4296
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-19T12:47:14Z
publishDate 2015-01-01
publisher Elsevier
record_format Article
series Journal of Optometry
spelling doaj.art-6922a0201fa24effac24cb82ef39c4d72022-12-21T20:20:43ZengElsevierJournal of Optometry1888-42962015-01-0181273210.1016/j.optom.2014.02.002Comparative evaluation of Comfilcon A and Senofilcon A bandage contact lenses after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomyAchyut MukherjeeAntonis IoannidesIoannis AslanidesPurpose: To evaluate and compare Comfilcon A and Senofilcon A silicone hydrogel contact lenses used as a therapeutic bandage following transepithelial excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Methods: Patients undergoing transepithelial PRK for myopia were prospectively recruited. Included patients had a Comfilcon A silicone hydrogel lens inserted in one eye, with a Senofilcon A lens in the contralateral eye. Postoperative assessment of subjective pain, epithelial healing and visual recovery was at day 1, 3 and 7. Contact lens factors including centration, movement and deposits were assessed. Results: 48 eyes of 24 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 31 years (SD 11) and mean refractive error −4.5 D (SD 1.8). Mean pain score at day 1 was significantly higher in the Comfilcon group at 4.6 (SD 2.7) vs. 1.5 (SD2.5) in the Senofilcon group (P < 0.005). Mean time to healing was 3.17 days (SD 0.37) in the Comfilcon group, and 3.21 days (SD 0.4) in the Senofilcon group, with no difference in defect size. There was a pronounced central raphe in 1 eye in the Comfilcon group vs. 5 eyes in the Senofilcon group (P = 0.19). Significantly more eyes demonstrated no lens movement in the Senofilcon group (18 vs. 4, P = 0.0001). Conclusion: The variation in material characteristics and lens geometry of different silicone hydrogel lenses affects their clinical characteristics in therapeutic roles. Other factors than oxygen permeability may affect pain and epithelial healing, with superior pain relief from the less permeable Senofilcon lens in this study.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888429614000077Photorefractive keratectomyTransepithelial PRKSilicone hydrogel contact lensBandage contact lens
spellingShingle Achyut Mukherjee
Antonis Ioannides
Ioannis Aslanides
Comparative evaluation of Comfilcon A and Senofilcon A bandage contact lenses after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
Journal of Optometry
Photorefractive keratectomy
Transepithelial PRK
Silicone hydrogel contact lens
Bandage contact lens
title Comparative evaluation of Comfilcon A and Senofilcon A bandage contact lenses after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
title_full Comparative evaluation of Comfilcon A and Senofilcon A bandage contact lenses after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of Comfilcon A and Senofilcon A bandage contact lenses after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of Comfilcon A and Senofilcon A bandage contact lenses after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
title_short Comparative evaluation of Comfilcon A and Senofilcon A bandage contact lenses after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
title_sort comparative evaluation of comfilcon a and senofilcon a bandage contact lenses after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
topic Photorefractive keratectomy
Transepithelial PRK
Silicone hydrogel contact lens
Bandage contact lens
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888429614000077
work_keys_str_mv AT achyutmukherjee comparativeevaluationofcomfilconaandsenofilconabandagecontactlensesaftertransepithelialphotorefractivekeratectomy
AT antonisioannides comparativeevaluationofcomfilconaandsenofilconabandagecontactlensesaftertransepithelialphotorefractivekeratectomy
AT ioannisaslanides comparativeevaluationofcomfilconaandsenofilconabandagecontactlensesaftertransepithelialphotorefractivekeratectomy