Purchase this article with an account.
E. Van Der Worp, J. De Brabander, H. Swarbrick, F. Hendrikse; Tear Meniscus Height Evaluation in Rigid Gas Permeable Lens Wear. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2009;50(13):904.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
The aim of this study is to investigate if differences in tear meniscus height (TMH) exist between rigid gas-permeable (GP) lens wearers and non-lens wearers, and furthermore if differences exist between subjects with significant 3- and 9-o'clock staining and those without staining. In addition, the relationship between lens fit variables and TMH was investigated.
The study involved 26 non-lens wearers and 55 GP contact lens wearers, with and without 3- and 9-o'clock staining. A video recording of the tear meniscus on the lower eyelid was generated with a CCD camera and a DVD recorder to measure the TMH from a computer screen. Subjects were categorized as either having < grade 2 staining (low staining group) or ≥ grade 2 staining (high staining group) based on a specially designed image grading scale for 3- and 9-o’clock staining.
The TMH in GP lens wearers was 0.20 ± 0.08 mm, while it was 0.28 ± 0.10 mm in non-lens wearers (p<0.01). Within the lens wearing group, the TMH in the high staining group was 0.19 ± 0.09 mm, whereas it was 0.21 ± 0.08 in the low staining group; this difference was not statistically significant. No statistically significant differences in TMH in relation to lens fit variables were found.
The finding that TMH values in GP lens wearers were lower than in non-lens wearers seems to support the hypothesis that GP lenses withhold tear volume from the anterior ocular surface in the lens edge meniscus. Contact lens fit related variables showed no relationship with TMH, and no statistically significant difference in TMH between the low staining group and the high staining group was found. Either there is no relationship between these variables, or the method of measuring TMH is not sensitive enough to determine potentially small differences in TMH.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only