To conduct a retrospective consecutive chart review of senofilcon A contact lenses when used for therapeutic or bandage lens applications. Indication for use includes corneal protection from exposure or repeated irritation, corneal pain relief, and barrier protection. Outcome assessments included pain relief, improvement in corneal signs, additional complications, and overall treatment success.
A total of 43 fully consented patients across 3 different clinical practices in the United States (Georgia, Florida and Ohio) were included in this study. Subjects enrolled in the study were identified by site investigators as their most recent 15 to 20 patients fit in senofilcon A lenses for the listed therapeutic indications. The cases were reviewed to assess the therapeutic success of the lens for the outcomes listed earlier.
All lenses fit had an 8.4-mm base curve and 14.0 mm diameter. Patients were fit for pain relief in 26 of the 43 cases of which 81% were judged to be fully effective, 8% partially effective, and 11% ineffective. Improvement in corneal integrity was the treatment goal in 25 cases and was fully effective in 64%, partially effective in 24%, and no change was noted in 12% of the cases. Twelve refractive surgical patients (laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis, epithelial laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis, laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy, or photorefractive keratectomy) wore the lenses successfully for 4 to 6 days postoperatively for comfort and protection without complications. Investigators judged the overall treatment as fully successful in 68% cases, partially successful in 18% cases, and neutral or unsuccessful in 14% cases. No adverse events were reported in any case.
Senofilcon A contact lenses are successful in the majority of cases when used for providing protection of corneal exposure and recurrent damage, pain management, barrier protection, and postsurgical management.
University Hospitals Eye Institute (T.S., L.S.F.), University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (T.S., L.S.F.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Foresight Regulatory Strategies (W.G.), Wilmington, MA; and Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc. (K.O.), Jacksonville, FL.
Address correspondence to Loretta B. Szczotka-Flynn, O.D., Ph.D., University Hospitals Eye Institute, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Lakeside 4126C, Cleveland, OH 44106; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Supported by Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., with indirect support from the Ohio Lions Eye Research Foundation and Research to Prevent Blindness.
The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose.
Accepted April 28, 2013