nach oben

International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health

Erschienen in:

04.12.2017 | Original Article

Ocular surface and tear film status among contact lens wearers and non-wearers who use VDT at work: comparing three different lens types

verfasst von: Ana Tauste, Elena Ronda, Valborg Baste, Magne Bråtveit, Bente E. Moen, María-del-Mar Seguí Crespo

Erschienen in: International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health | Ausgabe 3/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze differences in the ocular surface appearance and tear film status of contact lens wearers and non-wearers in a group of visual display terminals (VDT) workers and additionally to assess differences between lens materials.

Methods

Cross-sectional study of 236 office workers, of whom 92 were contact lens wearers. Workers provided information on their contact lenses (conventional hydrogel, silicone hydrogel or rigid gas permeable lenses) and exposure to VDT at work. Ocular surface and tear film status were determined by the presence of bulbar, limbal and lid redness, lid roughness and corneal staining type, and by Schirmer’s and tear break-up time tests (TBUT). A generalized linear model was used to calculate the crude (cRR) and age- and sex-adjusted (aRR) relative risk to measure the association between ocular surface and tear film abnormalities and contact lens use and type.

Results

The aRR of ocular surface abnormalities was higher in contact lens wearers compared to non-wearers: bulbar redness (aRR 1.69; 95% CI 1.25–2.30), limbal redness (aRR 2.87; 1.88–4.37), lid redness (aRR 2.53; 1.35–4.73) and lid roughness (aRR 7.03; 1.31–37.82). VDT exposure > 4 h/day increased wearers’ risk of limbal and lid redness. Conventional hydrogel wearers had the highest risk of ocular surface abnormalities, followed by silicone hydrogel wearers. Both contact and non-contact lens wearers had a high prevalence of altered TBUT (77.3 and 75.7% respectively) and Schirmer (51.8 and 41.3%).

Conclusions

Regular contact lens use during VDT exposure at work increases risk of bulbar, limbal and lid redness, and lid roughness, especially in soft contact lens wearers. The high prevalence of altered TBUT and Schirmer’s results in all participants suggests that VDT use greatly affects tear film characteristics.

Aakre BM, Doughty MJ (2007) Are there differences between ‘visual symptoms’ and specific ocular symptoms associated with video display terminal (VDT) use? Cont Lens Anterior Eye 30(3):174–182CrossRef

Argilés M, Cardona G, Pérez-Cabré E, Rodríguez M (2015) Blink rate and incomplete blinks in six different controlled hard-copy and electronic reading conditions. Investig Opthalmol Vis Sci 56(11):6679CrossRef

Brennan NA, Coles MC, Comstock TL, Levy B (2002) A 1-year prospective clinical trial of balafilcon a (PureVision) silicone-hydrogel contact lenses used on a 30-day continuous wear schedule. Ophthalmology 109(6):1172–1177CrossRef

Chu CA, Rosenfield M, Portello JK (2014) Blink patterns: reading from a computer screen versus hard copy. Optom Vis Sci 91(3):297–302

de Kluizenaar Y, Roda C, Dijkstra NE, Fossati S, Mandin C, Mihucz VG, Bluyssen PM (2016) Office characteristics and dry eye complaints in European workers–The OFFICAIR study. Build Environ 102(Supplement C):54–63CrossRef

Dumbleton KA, Chalmers RL, Richter DB, Fonn D (2001) Vascular response to extended wear of hydrogel lenses with high and low oxygen permeability. Optom Vis Sci 78(3):147–151CrossRef

Dumbleton K, Keir N, Moezzi A, Feng Y, Jones L, Fonn D (2006) Objective and subjective responses in patients refitted to daily-wear silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 83(10):758–768CrossRef

González-Méijome JM, Parafita MA, Yebra-Pimentel E, Almeida JB (2007) Symptoms in a population of contact lens and noncontact lens wearers under different environmental conditions. Optom Vis Sci 84(4):296–302CrossRef

Hirota M, Uozato H, Kawamorita T, Shibata Y, Yamamoto S (2013) Effect of incomplete blinking on tear film stability. Optom Vis Sci 90(7):650–657CrossRef

Jones L, Senchyna M, Glasier M-A, Schickler J, Forbes I, Louie D et al (2003) Lysozyme and lipid deposition on silicone hydrogel contact lens materials. Eye Contact Lens 29(1):S75–S79CrossRef

Kallarackal GU, Ansari EA, Amos N, Martin JC, Lane C, Camilleri JP (2002) A comparative study to assess the clinical use of fluorescein meniscus time (FMT) with tear break up time (TBUT) and Schirmer’s tests (ST) in the diagnosis of dry eyes. Eye 16(5):594–600CrossRef

Kojima T, Ibrahim OMA, Wakamatsu T, Tsuyama A, Ogawa J, Matsumoto Y et al (2011) The impact of contact lens wear and visual display terminal work on ocular surface and tear functions in office workers. Am J Ophthalmol 152(6):933–940CrossRef

Lemp MA, Bielory L (2008) Contact lenses and associated anterior segment disorders: dry eye disease, blepharitis, and allergy. Immunol Allergy Clin N Am 28(1):105–117

Li N, Deng X-G, He M-F (2012) Comparison of the Schirmer I test with and without topical anesthesia for diagnosing dry eye. Int J Ophthalmol 5(4):478–481

Lin MC, Yeh TN (2013) Mechanical complications induced by silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 39(1):115–124CrossRef

Luensmann D, Jones L (2012) Protein deposition on contact lenses: the past, the present, and the future. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 35(2):53–64CrossRef

Maldonado-Codina C, Morgan PB, Schnider CM, Efron N (2004) Short-term physiologic response in neophyte subjects fitted with hydrogel and silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 81(12):911–921

Maldonado-Codina C, Morgan PB, Efron N, Efron S (2005) Comparative clinical performance of rigid versus soft hyper Dk contact lenses used for continuous wear. Optom Vis Sci 82(6):536–548CrossRef

Nakamura S, Kinoshita S, Yokoi N, Ogawa Y, Shibuya M, Nakashima H et al (2010) Lacrimal hypofunction as a new mechanism of dry eye in visual display terminal users. Chakravarti S, editor. PLoS One 5(6):e11119CrossRef

Nichols JJ, Sinnott LT (2006) Tear film, contact lens, and patient-related factors associated with contact lens-related dry eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47(4):1319–1328CrossRef

Nichols JJ, Sinnott LT (2011) Tear film, contact lens, and patient factors associated with corneal staining. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52(2):1127CrossRef

Orsborn GN, Zantos SG (1988) Corneal desiccation staining with thin high water content contact lenses. CLAO J 14(2):81–85

Portello JK, Rosenfield M, Chu CA (2013) Blink rate, incomplete blinks and computer vision syndrome. Optomet Vis Sci 90(5):482–487CrossRef

Riley C, Young G, Chalmers R (2006) Prevalence of ocular surface symptoms, signs, and uncomfortable hours of wear in contact lens wearers: the effect of refitting with daily-wear silicone hydrogel lenses (senofilcon a): eye and contact lens. Sci Clini Pract 32(6):281–286

Sankaridurg PR, Sweeney DF, Sharma S, Gora R, Naduvilath T, Ramachandran L et al (1999) Adverse events with extended wear of disposable hydrogels: results for the first 13 months of lens wear. Ophthalmology 106(9):1671–1680CrossRef

Sankaridurg P, Lazon de la Jara P, Holden B (2013 Jan) The future of silicone hydrogels. Eye Contact Lens 39(1):125–129CrossRef

Santodomingo J, Villa C, Morgan P (2015) Lentes de contacto adaptadas en España en 2014: comparación con otros países. Gaceta de Optometría y Óptica Oftálmica. 2:74–81

Santodomingo-Rubido J (2007) The comparative clinical performance of a new polyhexamethylene biguanide—vs a polyquad-based contact lens care regime with two silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 27(2):168–173CrossRef

Savini G, Prabhawasat P, Kojima T, Grueterich M, Espana E, Goto E (2008) The challenge of dry eye diagnosis. Clin Ophthalmol 2(1):31–55CrossRef

Schlote T, Kadner G, Freudenthaler N (2004) Marked reduction and distinct patterns of eye blinking in patients with moderately dry eyes during video display terminal use. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 242(4):306–312CrossRef

Stapleton F, Kasses S, Bolis S, Keay L (2001) Short term wear of high Dk soft contact lenses does not alter corneal epithelial cell size or viability. Br J Ophthalmol 85(2):143–146CrossRef

Tagliaferri A, Love TE, Szczotka-Flynn LB (2014) Risk factors for contact lens–induced papillary conjunctivitis associated with silicone hydrogel contact lens wear. Eye Contact Lens 40(3):117–122CrossRef

Tauste A, Ronda E, Molina M-J, Seguí M (2016) Effect of contact lens use on computer vision syndrome. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 36(2):112–119CrossRef

Terry RL, Schnider CM, Holden BA, Cornish R, Grant T, Sweeney D et al (1993) CCLRU standards for success of daily and extended wear contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 70(3):234–243CrossRef

Uchino M, Schaumberg DA, Dogru M, Uchino Y, Fukagawa K, Shimmura S et al (2008) Prevalence of dry eye disease among Japanese visual display terminal users. Ophthalmology 115(11):1982–1988CrossRef

Uchino M, Nishiwaki Y, Michikawa T, Shirakawa K, Kuwahara E, Yamada M et al (2011) Prevalence and risk factors of dry eye disease in Japan: Koumi study. Ophthalmology 118(12):2361–2367CrossRef

Urgacz A, Mrukwa E, Gawlik R (2015) Adverse events in allergy sufferers wearing contact lenses. Adv Dermatol Allergol 3:204–209CrossRef

van Tilborg MM, Murphy PJ, Evans KS (2017) Impact of dry eye symptoms and daily activities in a modern office. Optom Vis Sci 94(6):688–693CrossRef

Wolkoff P (2017) External eye symptoms in indoor environments. Indoor Air 27(2):246–260CrossRef

Wu H, Wang Y, Dong N, Yang F, Lin Z, Shang X et al (2014) Meibomian gland dysfunction determines the severity of the dry eye conditions in visual display terminal workers. Sakakibara M, editor. PLoS One 9(8):e105575CrossRef

Yazici A, Sari ES, Sahin G, Kilic A, Cakmak H, Ayar O et al (2015) Change in tear film characteristics in visual display terminal users. Eur J Ophthalmol 25(2):85–89CrossRef

Young G, Riley CM, Chalmers RL, Hunt C (2007) Hydrogel lens comfort in challenging environments and the effect of refitting with silicone hydrogel lenses. Optom Vis Sci 84(4):302–308CrossRef

Titel: Ocular surface and tear film status among contact lens wearers and non-wearers who use VDT at work: comparing three different lens types
verfasst von: Ana Tauste
Elena Ronda
Valborg Baste
Magne Bråtveit
Bente E. Moen
María-del-Mar Seguí Crespo
Publikationsdatum: 04.12.2017
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health / Ausgabe 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0340-0131
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1246
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-017-1283-2

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2018

Environmental and biological measurements of isoflurane and sevoflurane in operating room personnel

Quality of work experience after angioplasty or heart surgery: a monocentric cohort study

Acceptance and barriers to access of occupational e-mental health: cross-sectional findings from a health-risk population of employees

Risk factors for episodic neck pain in workers: a 5-year prospective study of a general working population

Working hours and depressive symptoms over 7 years: evidence from a Korean panel study

The role of managers in addressing employees with musculoskeletal pain: a mixed methods study