Contact Lens Spectrum
Issue link: https://clssupplements.epubxp.com/i/740958
C O N T A C T L E N S S P E C T R U M S P E C I A L E D I T I O N 2 0 1 6 c l s p e c t r u m . c o m 30 DIGIT AL DEVICE USE through varied environmental conditions, during diverse tasks performed by the contact lens user, and over long hours of wear. With increased use of digital devices, patients may not understand the relationship between their discomfort and the amount of screen time they log each day. Unaware of the relationship, patients may not initi- ate a meaningful conversation about their challenges wearing contact lenses. Most patients only expect to obtain an updated prescription during their office visit; however, 97% of patients are interested in trying new technology, and 99% want to be educated about ad- vancements in contact lenses (Rah et al, 2015). Advances in materials chemistry and manufactur- ing processes enable designers to achieve significant improvements in contact lens characteristics. The morphological properties and surface chemistry of the Bausch + Lomb Ultra lens material have demon- strated that the humectant polyvinylpyrrolidone wraps around the silicone polymer to render the bulk and surface hydrophilic and that the lens maintains 95% of its moisture when worn 4 hours in a low humid- ity environment (Steffen et al, 2014), as well as after 16 hours of wear in a normal humidity environment (Schafer et al, 2016). After being refitted with Bausch + Lomb Ultra lenses, this large group of digital device users report- ing dry eyes experienced excellent end-of-day comfort and favorable ratings associated with dryness symp- toms. When focusing a long time at their digital de- vices, the contact lens dry eye patients agreed that the Bausch + Lomb Ultra lenses helped prevent blurriness and prevent their eyes from feeling tired and fatigued in addition to providing clear vision and comfort. While the in-office vision, lens fit, and slit lamp evaluations provided normal outcomes, the patient ex- perience demonstrated that the Bausch + Lomb Ultra lenses can help practitioners provide patients who use digital devices and report dry eyes with a positive lens- wearing experience. REFERENCES 1. Wolkoff P, Nøjgaard JK, Troiano P, Piccoli B. Eye complaints in the office environment: precorneal tear film integrity influenced by eye blinking efficiency. Occup Environ Med. 2005;62:4-12. 2. Tomlinson A, Cedarstaff TH. Tear evaporation from the human eye: the effects of contact lens wear. J Br Contact Lens Assoc. 1982;5:141-147. 3. Korb DR. Tear film-contact lens interactions. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1994;350:403-410. SCREEN TIME TAKES A TOLL N early one-third of adults spend more than half of their waking hours (9+) using a digital de- vice, according to The Vision Council's 2015 Digital Eye Strain Report, "Hindsight is 20/20/20: Protect Your Eyes From Digital Devices." "From the moment people get up until the time they go to bed again — including when they are eat- ing, exercising, and reading — they are using their smartphones, tablets, computers, laptops, and other electronic devices," Mike Daley, CEO of The Vision Council remarked in this report. Hours of screen time every day can result in digi- tal eye strain, which is characterized by dry, irritat- ed eyes, blurred vision, and eye fatigue, as well as head, neck, and back pain. In addition, studies show that, on average, people may blink 66% fewer times when staring at their digital screens (Bentivoglio et al, 1997; Argiles et al, 2015; Skotte et al, 2007), con- tributing to ocular dryness, and blurry vision. Among the highest users of digital devices (at least 9 hours a day) — and, coincidentally, among the highest users of contact lenses — are the Millen- nials (ages 20 to 35) and the Gen Xers (ages 36 to 51). Nearly 7 in 10 Millennials and 6 in 10 Gen Xers report symptoms of digital eye strain (The Vision Council, 2015). Incorporating a patient's lifestyle needs into a discussion of contact lens options will ensure that the patient understands these challenges and which contact lenses are best suited to address them. REFERENCES 1. Bentivoglio AR, Bressman SB, Cassetta E, Carretta D,Tonali P, Albanese A. Analysis of blink rate patterns in normal subjects. Mov Disord. 1997;12:1028-1034. 2. Argilés M, Cardona G, Pérez-Cabré E, Rodriguez M. Blink rate and incomplete blinks in six different controlled hard-copy and electronic reading conditions. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56: 6679-6685. 3. Skotte JH, Nøjgaard JK, Jørgensen LV, Christensen KB, Sjøgaard G. Eye blink frequency during different computer tasks quantified by electrooculography. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2007;99:113-119. Continued on p.35