Mediciones in vitro del espesor central de lentes de contacto hidratadas con diferentes instrumentos, marcas y diseños ópticos: un estudio piloto

Alicia López-Raso, Andrew Courtis, José Manuel López-Alonso, Elena Durán-Prieto, Javier Ruiz-Alcocer, Mercedes Burgos-Martínez, Neil Goodenough

Descargar artículo

Información básica

Volumen

V58 - N4 / 2025 Ordinario

Referencia

51212

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.7149/OPA.58.4.51212

Idioma

English

Etiquetas

Espesor central, lente de contacto, dispositivo ET-3, proyector V-12B, diseño óptico

Resumen

El espesor central de las lentes de contacto es un parámetro relacionado con la permeabilidad al oxígeno y la comodidad. Sin embargo, su valor no suele reportarse por los fabricantes. En este estudio piloto, se midió el espesor central de varias lentes de contacto blandas de diferentes potencias esféricas, adición y materiales con dos dispositivos diferentes, el medidor de espesores electrónico Rehder modelo ET-3 y el proyector de perfiles Nikon V-12B, para estudiar si las diferentes condiciones de medición (con la lente al aire o sumergida en solución salina) afectaban los resultados. Primero, se midieron las lentes con el dispositivo ET-3 y, posteriormente, se midió el espesor de un corte central de cada lente con el proyector Nikon V-12B. Se realizaron análisis de Bland-Altman y de correlación. Los resultados del análisis de Bland-Altmann sugieren que ambos instrumentos y métodos de medición son intercambiables. El análisis estadístico de los resultados de las lentes multifocales medidas sugiere que el espesor central cambia significativamente solo en lentes de alta potencia, independientemente de otros factores. Este trabajo presenta un primer estudio de validación de un método para medir el espesor central de lentes de contacto sumergidas en solución salina, lo que podría prevenir la evaporación y la posible reducción de sus propiedades.

Referencias

Lira M, Pereira C, Real Oliveira MECD, Castanheira EMS. Importance of contact lens power and thickness in oxygen transmissibility. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye 2015;38:120–6.

Lorente-Velázquez A, García-Montero M, Gómez-Sanz FJ, Rico del Viejo L, Hernández-Verdejo JL, Madrid-Costa D. Comparison of the impact of nesofilcon a hydrogel contact lens on the ocular surface and the comfort of presbyopic and non-presbyopic wearers. Int J Ophthalmol 2019;12:640–6.

Papas EB. The Role of Hypoxia in the Limbal Vascular Response to Soft Contact Lens Wear. Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice 2003:S72–4.

Efron N, Morgan PB, Nichols JJ, Walsh K, Willcox MD, Wolffsohn JS, et al. All soft contact lenses are not created equal. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye 2022;45:101515.

Kim E, Bakaraju RC, Ehrmann K. Power Profiles of Commercial Multifocal Soft Contact Lenses. Optometry and Vision Science 2017;94:183–96.

Lin MC, Graham AD, Polse KA, Mandell RB, Mcnamara NA. Measurement of Post-Lens Tear Thickness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40:2833–9.

Valdes G, Romaguera M, Serramito M, Cerviño A, Gonzalo Carracedo G. OCT applications in contact lens fitting. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye 2022;45:101540.

18369-3. ISO publication Ophthalmic optics - Contact lenses - Part 3: Measurement methods. 2017.

Xia F, Zhao J, Fu D, Qin B, Chen Z, Zhao Y, et al. Comparison of the Effects of Temperature and Dehydration Mode on Glycerin-Based Approaches to SMILE-Derived Lenticule Preservation. Cornea 2022;41:470–7.

ET-3 Electronic Thickness Gauge CR. Technical Specifications and Options.

Bakaraju RC, Tilia D, Sha J, Diec J, Chung J, Kho D, et al. Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs. two commercial multifocals: Part 2. Visual performance after 1 week of lens wear. J Optom 2018;11:21–32.

Teixeira AB V., Beja GBSP, Shimano AC, Macedo AP, Oliscovicz NF, dos Reis AC. Influence of the ultimate torsion on the geometry of dental implants. Braz Dent J 2013;24:213–7.

Khaledi A, Borhanihaghighi Z, Vojdani M. The effect of disinfectant agents on dimensional stability and surface roughness of a tissue conditioner material. Indian Journal of Dental Research 2011;22:499–504.

Arensburg B, Belkin V, Wolf M. Middle ear pathology in ancient and modern populations: incudal osteoma. Acta Otolaryngol 2005;125:1164–7.

Pearson RM. A review of the limitations of the first hydrogel contact lenses. Clin Exp Optom 2010;93:15–25.

Profile Nikon Projectors V-24B V-20B and V-12B. Nikon Metrology. Http://WwwNikon-InstrumentsJp/Eng/ 2023.

Abass A, Stuart S, Lopes BT, Zhou D, Geraghty B, Wu R, et al. Simulated optical performance of soft contact lenses on the eye. PLoS One 2019;14:e0216484.

Rueff EM, Jones-Jordan LA, Bailey MD. A randomised clinical trial of multifocal contact lenses and contact lens discomfort. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 2021;41:93–104.

Cox SM, Berntsen DA, Bickle KM, Mathew JH, Powell DR, Little BK, et al. Efficacy of Toric Contact Lenses in Fitting and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Contact Lens Wearers. Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice 2018;44:S296–9.

Wooff PJ, Norman JC. Effect of corneal contact lens wear on healing time and comfort post LGK for treatment of SCCEDs in boxers. Vet Ophthalmol 2015;18:364–70.

Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8:135–60.

Olshaker H, Buhbut O, Achiron A, Dotan G, Levy I, Tuuminen R, et al. Comparison of keratometry data using handheld and table-mounted instruments in healthy adults. Int Ophthalmol 2021;41:3451–8.

Larner AJ. Correlation or Limits of Agreement? Applying the Bland-Altman Approach to the Comparison of Cognitive Screening Instruments. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2016;42:247–54.

Shi Q, Wang GY, Cheng YH, Pei C. Comparison of IOL-Master 700 and IOL-Master 500 biometers in ocular biological parameters of adolescents. Int J Ophthalmol 2021;14:1013–7.

Kim E, Bakaraju RC, Ehrmann K. Reliability of power profiles measured on NIMO TR1504 (Lambda-X) and effects of lens decentration for single vision, bifocal and multifocal contact lenses. J Optom 2016;9:126–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2015.10.005.

Wang W, Cong N, Chen T, Zhang H, Zhang B. A note on misspecification in general linear models with correlated errors for the analysis of crossover clinical trials. PLoS One 2019;14:e0213436. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213436.

Rik. BlandAltmanPlot (https://github.com/thrynae/BlandAltmanPlot/releases/tag/v1.2.1), GitHub. Last access 8th October 2025.

Vincent SJ, Alonso-Caneiro D, Kricancic H, Collins MJ. Scleral contact lens thickness profiles: The relationship between average and centre lens thickness. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye 2019;42:55–62.

Tankam P, Won J, Canavesi C, Cox I, Rolland JP. Optical assessment of soft contact lens edge-thickness. Optometry and Vision Science 2016;93:987–96.

González-Méijome JM, Cerviño A, Peixoto-de-Matos SC, Madrid-Costa D, Jorge J, Ferrer-Blasco T. “In Situ” Corneal and Contact Lens Thickness Changes with High-Resolution Optical Coherence Tomography. Cornea 2012;31:633–8.

Chan VWY, Phan CM, Walther H, Ngo W, Jones L. Effects of temperature and blinking on contact lens dehydration of contemporary soft lens materials using an in vitro blink model. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2021;10:11.

Saeki K, Huyan D, Sawada M, Nakamura A, Kubota S, Uno K, et al. Three-dimensional measurement for spherical and nonspherical shapes of contact lenses. Appl Opt 2021;60:3689–98.