Kliniczne znaczenie lubrykacji soczewek kontaktowych

• Authors: Desmond Fonn

Title variants

EN

The Clinical Relevance of Contact Lens Lubricity

• Languages of publication: PL

Discipline

• MEDICINE: MEDICINE

• Publisher: Medical Education
• Journal: OphthaTherapy
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 1
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 267-270

Contributors

author

Desmond Fonn

• Założyciel i dyrektor Centrum Badań Soczewek Kontaktowych, emerytowany profesor w Szkole Optometrii w Johannesburgu i na Uniwersytecie Nowej Południowej Walii w Sydney

References

• 1. Dumbleton K, Woods CA, Jones LW, et al. The impact of contemporary contact lenses on contact lens discontinuation. Eye Contact Lens 2013; 39(1): 93-99.
• 2. Rumpakis J. New data on contact lens dropouts: an international perspective. Review of Optometry 2010; 147: 37-42.
• 3. Fonn D, Situ P, Simpson TL. Hydrogel lens dehydration and subjective comfort and dryness ratings in symptomatic and asymptomatic contact lens wearers. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76(10): 700-704.
• 4. Guillon M, Maissa C. Dry eye symptomatology of soft contact lens wearers and nonwearers. Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82(9): 829-834.
• 5. Chalmers RL, Begley CG. Dryness symptoms among an unselected clinical population with and without contact lens wear. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2006; 29(1): 25-30.
• 6. Cedarstaff TH, Tomlinson A. A comparative study of tear evaporation rates and water content of soft contact lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1983; 60(3): 167-174.
• 7. Pritchard N, Fonn D. Dehydration, lens movement and dryness ratings of hydrogel contact lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt.
• 8. Morgan PB, Efron N. In vivo dehydration of silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2003; 29(3): 173-176.
• 9. Subbaraman L, Jones LW. Measuring friction and lubricity of hydrogel contact lenses − A review. Contact Lens Spectrum; special edition 2013 [online: http://www.clspectrum.com/articleviewer.aspx?articleID=108560].
• 10. Malhotra M, Subramanian R, Gahlot P, et al. Textbook in Applied Mechanics. New Delhi: New Age International 1994.
• 11. Maldonado-Codina C, Efron N. Dynamic wettability of pHEMA-based hydrogel contact lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2006; 26(4): 408-418.
• 12. Tighe BJ. A decade of silicone hydrogel development: surface properties, mechanical properties and ocular compatibility. Eye Contact Lens 2013; 39(1): 4-12.
• 13. Spring TF. Reaction to hydrophilic lenses. Med J Aust 1974; 1(12): 449-450.
• 14. Allansmith MR, Korb DR, Greiner JV, et al. Giant papillary conjunctivitis in contact lens wearers. Am J Ophthalmol 1977; 83(5): 697-708.
• 15. Dumbleton K. Noninflammatory silicone hydrogel contact lens complications. Eye Cont Lens 2003; 29(suppl. 1): 186-189; discussion: 190-194.
• 16. Korb DR, Greiner JV, Herman JP, et al. Lid-wiper epitheliopathy and dry-eye symptoms in contact lens wearers. CLAO J 2002; 28(4): 211-216.
• 17. Pult H, Purslow C, Berry M, et al. Clinical tests for successful contact lens wear: relationship and predictive potential. Optom Vis Sci 2008; 85(10): E924-929.
• 18. Keir N, Jones L. Wettability and silicone hydrogel lenses: A review. Eye Contact Lens 2013; 39(1): 100-108.
• 19. Pruitt J, Qiu Y, Thekveli S, et al. Surface characterization of a water gradient silicone hydrogel contact lens (delefilcon A). Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 2012; 53. E-abstract 6107.
• 20. Sawyer WG. Lubricity in high water content surface gel layers. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89. E-abstract 125089.
• 21. Brennan NA. Contact lens-based correlates of soft lens wearing comfort. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86. E-abstract 90957.
• 22. Coles C. Coefficient of friction and contact lens comfort. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89. E-abstract 125603.

• Document Type: communication