June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Contact Lens Disinfecting Solution vs. Blister Pack: a Subjective Evaluation
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Scott Schatz
    Appalachian College of Optometry, Grundy, VA
  • Balamurali Vasudevan
    College of Optometry, Midwestern University, Glendale, AZ
  • Sara Gaib
    College of Optometry, Midwestern University, Glendale, AZ
  • Kimbal Cooper
    College of Health Sciences, Midwestern University, Glendale, AZ
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Scott Schatz, Abbot Medical Optics Inc (F); Balamurali Vasudevan, None; Sara Gaib, Bausch+Lomb (C), Alcon (R), Vistakon (R), Coopervision (R); Kimbal Cooper, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 515. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Scott Schatz, Balamurali Vasudevan, Sara Gaib, Kimbal Cooper; Contact Lens Disinfecting Solution vs. Blister Pack: a Subjective Evaluation. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):515. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To study subjectively the effect of contact lens disinfecting solution on the ocular surface in the presence of either a hydrogel or a silicone hydrogel soft contact lens.

Methods: Twenty young adult subjects were examined for this study over 2 visits. Subjects were fit (randomized) with either a hydrogel lens or silicone hydrogel lens in either eye. The lenses were pre-soaked overnight in either Puremoist or Revitalens contact lens disinfecting solution or were obtained from the blister pack in a randomized process. Subjective feedback on discomfort, burning, dryness and irritation on a scale of 1 to 5 was obtained at baseline, prior to lens insertion, and after 8 hours of wear. Chi-square analysis was performed.

Results: There was a statistically significant increase in dryness after lens insertion for Proclear and Purevision lenses taken from the blister pack , relative to baseline (p = 0.01). Following 8 hours of lens wear, there was a statistically significant increase in burning sensation relative to baseline for all Proclear lenses. This held true whether they were obtained from the blister pack or pre-soaked in Revitalens MPDS or Puremoist MPDS (p=0.01).

Conclusions: Subjectively, lenses from the blister pack produced more subjective symptoms of dryness upon initial insertion than those pre-soaked in either solution. Proclear lenses produced more subjective symptoms of burning after 8 hours of wear relative to baseline irrespective of whether they were obtained from the blister pack, or pre-soaked in either solution.

Keywords: 477 contact lens  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×