Search for:
Home
This Month
Editorial
 Contact Lenses and Silicone Allergy
more
Meeting Synopsis
 ARVO Synopsis Part 2
> more
Posters
 Lactoferrin Uptake Kinetics on SiH and Conventional Hydrogel Contact Lens Materials
 more
In The Practice
 Hypersensitivity with Silicone Hydrogels: Material or Solution Effect? more
Tell a friend
Home
About Us
Affiliates
Contact Us
Disclaimer
Site Map

 
Quick Vote:
When refitting conventional wearers with silicone hydrogels, how frequently do you encounter possible hypersensitivity to either the materials or a material / solution combination? click

 
Would you like to subscribe to our monthly newsletter?   click
 
This site is partially funded through an unrestricted educational grant from CIBA Vision
 
Posters
March 2003

 

PAPILLARY RESPONSE IN CONTACT LENS PAPILLARY CONJUNCTIVITIS IS EITHER GENERAL OR LOCALISED

Sankaridurg P1, Sweeney D1, Naduvilath T2, Aasuri M, Holden B1, Rao GN2 Cooperative Research Centre for Eye Research and Technology, Sydney, Australia1; L.V.Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India2

 
Purpose:
To determine if during Contact Lens Papillary Conjunctivitis (CLPC), specific areas of the tarsal conjunctiva exhibit a papillary response which would help elucidate the aetiology.
Method:
In prospective trials conducted at India, 1,584 eyes of 792 subjects wore either low Dk disposable CL (FDA Groups Type I, II & IV) on a 6 night (N) or high Dk silicone CL on a 30N extended wear schedule. For examination, the upper tarsal conjunctiva was classified into 5 areas (Areas 1 to 3: central tarsus where Area 1 is closest to lid fold and Area 3 is closest to lid margin; Area 4: nasal and Area 5 is temporal). At CLPC, the location of papillae was determined and if scattered across the tarsus, the response was "General" and if located in specific areas, it was "Local". Also, tarsal roughness in each area was graded on a 0-4 scale (0=no roughness & 4=severe) and the baseline (BL) data was compared to at CLPC using Grouped t-test.
Results:
Of the 68 CLPC events, 39 (57%) were categorised as 'General' and the other 29 (42%) were 'Local'. Roughness was slight at BL in all areas and statistically significant increases were seen at event for all areas (p< 0.05). However >1 grade roughness was seen for "General" in Areas 1,2,3& 5 and "Local" in Areas 2 & 3 and corresponded to the location of the papillae.
Conclusions:

There are 2 presentations of CLPC: a) general involving the entire tarsus excepting nasal and b) local involving the central tarsal conjunctiva proximal to lid margin. The local response suggests that mechanical trauma from the CL edge, defects or junctions could possibly plays a role. The aetiology of 'General' is less clear and it is possible that these factors or other unknown factors are responsible.
Download PDF of Poster:
PAPILLARY RESPONSE IN CONTACT LENS PAPILLARY CONJUNCTIVITIS IS EITHER GENERAL OR LOCALISED - 117 KB
You will need Version 4 or later of Adobe Acrobat Reader to view some documents on this site. You can get the latest version from the Adobe Home site. 

 
 
All rights reserved, copyright 2002 - 2007 siliconehydrogels.org