Gas-Permeable Contact Lenses and Water Exposure: Practices and Perceptions.

SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides insight into the current recommendations, clinical behaviors, and risk assessments of eye care professionals on the topic of rigid contact lens exposure to tap water. This knowledge may motivate professional organizations to develop initiatives to educate eye care professionals on the dangers of contact lens exposure to water. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the practice patterns and risk perceptions of eye care professionals regarding gas-permeable contact lens exposure to tap water. METHODS: A branched-logic survey was started by 320 clinicians, vision scientists, and industry personnel and was fully completed by 272 participants. The survey queried participants about their current practices, recommendations, and perceptions of risk regarding exposure of gas-permeable contact lenses to tap water. RESULTS: Of those who prescribe gas-permeable contact lenses, 57.4% reported rinsing lenses with tap water, whereas only 32.7% reported engaging in this same behavior in front of patients. Of those who reported never rinsing lenses with tap water, 85.6% indicated that rinsing lenses with water increases infection risk, whereas 52.1% of those who rinse lenses with water reported the same perceived risk (P < .001). Of all participants, 60% indicated that wearing contact lenses while showering increases infection risk, and 50.2% of all participants advised patients to avoid this behavior. CONCLUSIONS: A discrepancy exists between perceptions of risk concerning exposure of contact lenses to water and both clinical practices and patient education provided by professionals.

Water Exposure is a Common Risk Behavior Among Soft and Gas-Permeable Contact Lens Wearers.

PURPOSE: To understand soft contact lens (SCL) and gas-permeable (GP) lens wearers' behaviors and knowledge regarding exposure of lenses to water. METHODS: The Contact Lens Risk Survey (CLRS) and health behavior questions were completed online by a convenience sample of 1056 SCL and 85 GP lens wearers aged 20 to 76 years. Participants were asked about exposing their lenses to water and their understanding of risks associated with these behaviors. Chi-square analyses examined relationships between patient behaviors and perceptions. RESULTS: GP lens wearers were more likely than SCL wearers to ever rinse or store lenses in water (rinsing: 91% GP, 31% SCL, P < 0.001; storing: 33% GP, 15% SCL P < 0.001). Among SCL wearers, men were more likely to store (24% vs. 13%, P = 0.003) or rinse (41% vs. 29%, P = 0.012) their lenses in water. Showering while wearing lenses was more common in SCL wearers (86%) than GP lens wearers (67%) (P < 0.0001). Swimming while wearing lenses was reported by 62% of SCL wearers and 48% of GP lens wearers (P = 0.027). Wearers who rinsed (SCL; P < 0.0001, GP; P = 0.11) or stored lenses in water (SCL; P < 0.0001, GP P = 0.007) reported that this behavior had little or no effect on their infection risk, compared with those who did not. Both SCL (P < 0.0001) and GP lens wearers (P < 0.0001) perceived that distilled water was safer than tap water for storing or rinsing lenses. CONCLUSIONS: Despite previously published evidence of Acanthamoeba keratitis' association with water exposure, most SCL, and nearly all GP lens wearers, regularly expose their lenses to water, with many unaware of the risk.

Microbial keratitis secondary to unintended poor compliance with scleral gas-permeable contact lenses.

PURPOSE: To report a case of neurotrophic keratitis in which scleral contact lenses improved vision from 20/100 to 20/20, however, due to poor lens care, an incident of microbial keratitis developed. METHODS: A 64-year-old man with an ocular history of neurotrophic keratitis secondary to herpes simplex in each eye was successfully fit with scleral lenses. He subsequently developed microbial keratitis due to a number of risk factors. RESULTS: The lesion was culture negative, yet was very responsive to treatment with moxifloxacin. The lesion fully healed, and the patient did not suffer additional vision loss. CONCLUSIONS: This case demonstrates the ability of scleral lenses to correct visual impairments secondary to poor epithelial integrity and illustrates the importance of the practitioner providing detailed lens care instruction.

Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity testing for sports vision.

UNLABELLED: : The building blocks of effective sports vision are visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. Proper measurement of these spatial vision attributes is necessary for repeatability in the clinic or in the laboratory. The most repeatable method of testing visual acuity is with logMAR charts-either the Bailey-Lovie chart or the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart. The Pelli-Robson and the Mars are the most repeatable contrast sensitivity tests. Athletes may or may not demonstrate superior visual acuity and contrast sensitivity compared with age-matched nonathlete populations, and the optical quality of their eyes may be similar. Dynamic visual acuity in athletes and their performance are typically superior to those of nonathletes. How these differences relate to on-field performance is not known. Other changes to the visual system because of refractive surgery or contact lens wear may increase higher order aberrations and reduce low-contrast visual acuity. The ability to improve already-normal visual acuity is unclear although contrast sensitivity can improve with fast-paced video games. Tinted contact lenses help reduce discomfort glare and speed up adaptation but do not have an appreciable effect on visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. CONCLUSION: The use of valid and repeatable visual acuity and contrast sensitivity tests is essential for measuring the differences in visual performance among athletes and nonathletes. The development of a standardized dynamic visual acuity test is needed as are well-controlled scientific studies to evaluate the benefits of sports vision training.