Contact Lens Spectrum
December 2000
Document #66
References
(p. 33) Pursuing Comfort in a Multi-purpose Solution by Peter Donshik, MD, Rebecca Madden,
OD, and Peter A. Simmons, PhD, FAAO
1.
Ophthalmic demulcents, 21 CFR 349.12, 4-1-00 ed., U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. (2000).
2.
D.A.Benedetto, D.O.Shah, and H.E.Kaufman, The instilled fluid dynamics and surface chemistry of polymers in the preocular tear film, Invest Ophthalmol . 14:887 (1975).
3.
A.Ludwig, H.N.J.van, V.M.Bodelier, and O.M.Van, Relationship between precorneal retention of viscous eye drops and tear fluid composition, Int Ophthalmol . 16:23 (1992).
4.
I.Toda, N.Shinozaki, and K.Tsubota, Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose for the treatment of severe dry eye associated with Sjogren's Syndrome, Cornea . 15:120 (1996).
5.
P.Versura, M.C.Maltarello, F.Stecher, R.Caramazza, and R.Laschi, Dry eye before and after therapy with hydroxypropyl methylcellulose. Ultrastructural and cytochemical study in 20 patients, Ophthalmologica . 198:152 (1989).
6.
J.Lau and L.Jones, Physical properties of multi-purpose contact lens solutions, 1999, Optometry and Vision Science . 76 (12s):161.
7.
P.A. Simmons, W.Kelly, W.Prather, and J.G.Vehige, Clinical benefits and physical properties of addition of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) to a multi-purpose contact lens care solution, 2000, Cornea . 19(6 Suppl 2):s124.
8.
P.A. Simmons, W. Prather, J. Vehige, Improvement in wetting properties of a multipurpose contact lens solution by addition of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), 2000, Optometry and Vision Science . 77 (12s):178.
(p. 38) Clinical Performance of Monthly Lens and Patient Comfort by Brenda Hall, BSc, PhD, and Stephen Jones, BSc, PhD
1. Hayward JA and Chapman D. Biomembrane surfaces as models for polymer design: the potential for haemocompatability. Biomaterials, 1984; 5:135-142.
2. Allsopp G. Performance review of a biocompatible monthly disposable contact lens. Optician,
1997; 213 (5595):30-32.
3. Young G, Port MJA and Bowers RWJ. Performance review of a biomimetic contact lens.
Optician, 1995; 210 (5509):23-30.
4. Port MJA. The use of Proclear biomimetic materials in hyperthin soft lens designs. Trans Brit
Contact Lens Assoc, 1995; 18 (4):131.
5. Guillon J-P, Young G and Hall B. Surface wettability of moulded soft contact lenses. In press.
6. Fonn D. Discontinuation of contact lens wear and its effect on the growth of business. Supp to
CL Spectrum, Sept 1996.
7. Lebow K and Bridgewater B. A three-month comparative daily-wear study of two high water content soft lenses. Int Contact Lens Clin, 1997; 24:198-206.

8. Lebow K and Bridgewater B. A performance comparison of two hydrogel lenses. CL Spectrum,
1998; April:45-48.
9. Young G, Bowers RWJ, Hall B and Port MJA. Six-month evaluation of a biomimetic hydrogel contact lens. CLAO J, 1997; 23 (4):226-235.
10.
Hall B. All-day comfort with a monthly frequent replacement lens.
Optician, 2000; 220 (5766):28-31.
11. Franklin VJ, Bright AM and Tighe B. Hydrogel polymers and ocular spoilation processes. TRIP
1993; 1 (1):9-16.
12. Bontempo AR and Napp J. Lipid deposits an hydrophilic and rigid gas-permeable contact lenses.
CLAO J, 1994; 20 (4):242-245.
13. Young G, Bowers RWJ, Hall B and Port MJA. Clinical comparison of omafilcon A with four control materials. CLAO J, 1997; 23 (4):249-258.
14. Hall B, Jones S, Young G and Coleman S. The on-eye dehydration of Proclear Compatibles lenses. CLAO J, 1999; 25 (4):233-237.
15. Morgan PB and Efron N. Hydrogel contact lens ageing. CLAO J, 2000; 26(2):85-90.
16. Doughty MJ, Fonn D, Richter D et al. A patient questionnaire approach to estimating the prevalence of dry-eye symptoms in patients presenting to optometric practices across Canada.
Optom Vis Sci, 1997; 74:624-631.
17. Poggio EC and Abelson MB. Complications and symptoms with disposable daily wear contact lenses and conventional soft daily wear contact lenses. CLAO J, 1993; 19:95-102.
18. Fonn D, Pritchard N, Brazeau D et al. Discontinuation of contact lens wear: the number, reasons and patient profiles. Invest Opth Vis Sci, 1995; 36:s312.
19. Lemp MA et al. Omafilcon A (Proclear) soft contact lenses in a dry-eye population. CLAO J,
1999; 25 (1):40-47.
20. Fonn D and Simpson T. Hydrogel lens dehydration and subjective and dryness ratings in symptomatic and asymptomatic contact lens wearers. Optom Vis Sci, 1999; 76 (10):700-704.
21. Efron N and Morgan PB. Hydrogel contact lens dehydration and oxygen transmissibility. CLAO
J, 1999; 25 (3):148-151.
22.
Hall B, Sulley A and Jones S. Clinical performance of biomimetic soft lenses. Optician, 2000;
219 (5753):20-26.
(p. 44) Complications in Pediatric Aphakic Extended Wear by Donna Wicker, OD, FAAO, and
Mark Ventocilla, OD, FAAO
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Schein OD, Glynn RJ, Poggio EC, Seddon JM, Kenyon KR. The relative risk of ulcerative keratitis among users of daily-wear and extended-wear soft contact lenses. New Eng J Med
321(12):773-8, 1989.
Choyce DP. Correction of uniocular aphakia by means of anterior chamber acrylic implants.
Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 78:459, 1958.
Hiles DA. Intraocular lens implantation in children with monocular contacts, 1974-1983.
Ophthalmology 91:1231, 1984.
Morgan KS, Stephenson GS, McDonald MB, et al. Epikeratophakia in children.
Ophthalmology 91:780, 1984.
Moore BD. Optometic management of congenital cataracts. J Amer Optom Assn
65(10):719-24, 1994.

6.
7.
Neumann D, Weissman BA, Isenberg SJ, Rosenbaum AL, Bateman B. The effectiveness of daily wear contact lenses for the correction of infantile aphakia. Arch Ophthalmol 111:927-
30, 1993.
Cutler SI, Nelson LB, Calhoun JH. Extended wear contact lenses in pediatric aphakia. J Ped
Ophthalmol & Strabismus 22(3):86-91, 1985.
8.
9.
Baker JD. Visual rehabilitation of aphakic children: Contact lenses. Survey of Ophthalmol
Viewpoints 34(5):366-71, 1990.
Cutler SI, Nelson LB, Calhoun JH. Extended wear contact lenses in pediatric aphakia. J Ped
Ophthalmol & Strabismus 22(3):86-91, 1985.
10.
Glynn RJ, Schein OD, Seddon JM, Poggio EC, Goodfellow JR, Scardino VA, Shannon MJ,
Kenyon KR. The incidence of ulcerative keratitis among aphakic contact lens wearers in
New England. Arch Ophthalmol 109:104-7, 1991.
11.
Weissman BA. Fitting aphakic children with contact lenses. J Amer Optom Assoc
54(3):235-7, 1983.
(p. 49) A New Material on the Block of Frequent Replacement Lenses by Urs Businger, OD,
FAAO
1.
Porazinski A. , Donshik P. : Giant papillary conjunctivitis in frequent replacement contact lens wearers: A retrospective study. CLAO 1999; 25.3: 142-147
2.
Chalmers R., Cutter G., Roseman M.: The selfmanagement behaviors of soft contat lens wearers: The effect of lens modality. ICLC 1995; 22:5&6: 117-122
3.
Keech P., Ichikawa L., Barlow W.: A prospective study of contact lens complications in a managed care setting. Optom Vis Sci 1996; 73:10: 653-658
4.
Ivins P.: Disposability and planned replacement – a personal view. Optician 1991;201: 5290: 18-
21
5.
Ky W., Scherick K., Stenson S.: Clinical survey of lens care in contact lens patients. CLAO
1998; 24: 4: 216-219
6.
Simmons P., Tmlinson A., Seal D.: The role of pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm in attachment of Acanthamoeba to four types of hydrogel contact lens materials. Optom Vis Sci 1998; 75: 12:
860-866
7.
Hildalgo F., Flack G., Grewal I : A clinical investigation of two frequnet replacement soft lenses. Optician 1999;218;57330: 18-22
8.
Bailey I., Bullimore M., Raasch T., Taylor H.: Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. Invest
Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991; 32: 422-432