4.5 Article

A survey of contact lens-related complications in a tertiary hospital in China

Journal

CONTACT LENS & ANTERIOR EYE
Volume 41, Issue 2, Pages 201-204

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2017.10.007

Keywords

Complications; Contact lens; China; Meibomian gland dysfunction; Blepharitis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To describe the type of complications related to contact lens (CL) wear in a tertiary hospital in XX, China. Methods: A retrospective study of 141 patients who complained discomfort after wearing contact lens on an outpatient basis of XX Hospital were conducted from the January 2012 to December 2015. The data included patients' demographics, lens type, history, slit-lamp examination, reports of corneal scrapings, culture, and examination of in vivo confocal microscopy. Binary logistic regression was used to analyse the possible factors which were associated with more severe corneal complications and superficial punctuate keratitis (SPK). Results: About 86.52% were female and 13.48% were male, the age varied between 12 and 56 years old. Of the 141 patients, 82.27% were soft CL wearers, 2.84% were rigid gas permeable lens (RGP) wearers, and 14.89% patients used overnight orthokeratology. The most common complication was dry eye (36.88%), followed by SPK (36.17%) during these cases. Blepharitis and meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) were noted in 31.91% of cases. Microbial keratitis was seen in 15 patients including 7 cases of Acanthamoeba keratitis. Age was a significant factor to be a case of corneal infection or inflammation [Exp (B) was 0.918, p = 0.030], MGD and blepharitis was found to be significantly associated with being a case of SPK [Exp(B) was2.276, p= 0.047]. Conclusions: The commonest complication was dry eye in this study, followed by SPK. Lid margin and meibomain gland should be paid attention to before contact lens prescription. Younger CL wearers need follow-up examinations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available