Silicone hydrogel contact lenses provide a higher oxygen transmissibility rate than daily disposable hydrogel contact lenses, according to a Berkeley-based professor.
Clinical associate professor at the University of California, Dr Kathy Dumbleton, told OT that research has found that silicone hydrogel contact lenses offer patients more comfort than daily disposable hydrogel lenses.
Dr Dumbleton explained that oxygen transmissibility needs to be considered across the whole profile of a contact lens.
“The critical levels, centrally, have been reported to be 20 dk/t units and peripherally it’s 33 dk/t units. Currently, daily disposable hydrogel lenses do not meet these requirements across the entire profile of the lens,” Dr Dumbleton said.
“[With silicone hydrogels] we’re able to offer patients much higher levels of oxygen transmission and hopefully that equates to longer, more comfortable, successful contact lens wear for our patients,” she explained.
Dr Dumbleton shared that the benefits for handling is related to higher modulus compared to some hydrogel contact lenses, adding that ease of application is a major factor for successful contact lens wear.
Comments (1)
You must be logged in to join the discussion. Log in
Daysoft28 August 2018
Dr Dumbleton article 28082018 Dr Dumbleton states in her recent Optometry Today article with accompanying video that, “With silicone hydrogels we’re able to offer patients much higher levels of oxygen transmission and hopefully that equates to longer, more comfortable, successful contact lens wear for our patients”. But there is no published evidence to show that it does, it is just a hope. More to the point, however, is that in comparing silicone hydrogel to traditional hydrogel material the evidence shows that the former carries significantly higher risks of patients suffering microbial keratitis (MK). As I am sure Dr Dumbleton and OT readers will know, it is the legal responsibilities of eye-care professionals (ECPs) to inform patients of the potential risks of sight-threatening MK associated with different types/materials of contact lenses and modalities of wear. This is so patients, thus informed, can elect to wear their preference. I am therefore very surprised that the much higher risk associated with silicone hydrogel contact lens material comparted to traditional hydrogel material is not mentioned by Dr Dumbleton. A specific result of research comparing soft lenses was that there was a zero incidence of Loss of Vision due to MK for, and only for, daily-disposables using non-silicone hydrogel lenses. If requested I can supply the independent research evidence in support of the above. In summary, I question if any patient, informed of the relative risks, albeit small, would elect to wear silicone hydrogel material lenses, of any modality. Ron Hamilton, Executive Chairman, Daysoft Limited [email protected]
Report Like 288