Clinical Features and Compliance in Patients with Cosmetic Contact Lens-Related Complications

Hun Jin Choi; Jung Hoon Yum; Jong Hyun Lee; Do Hyung Lee; Jin Hyoung Kim

doi:10.3341/jkos.2014.55.10.1445

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.55(10) > 1009802

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Choi, Yum, Lee, Lee, and Kim: Clinical Features and Compliance in Patients with Cosmetic Contact Lens-Related Complications

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2014;55(10):1445-1451.

Published online: 2 September 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2014.55.10.1445

Clinical Features and Compliance in Patients with Cosmetic Contact Lens-Related Complications

Hun Jin Choi, MD, Jung Hoon Yum, MD, Jong Hyun Lee, MD, PhD, Do Hyung Lee, MD, PhD, Jin Hyoung Kim, MD, PhD

Department of Ophthalmology, Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Goyang, Korea

Address reprint requests to Jin Hyoung Kim, MD, PhD, Department of Ophthalmology, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, #170 Juhwa-ro, Ilsanseo-gu, Goyang 411-706, Korea, Tel: 82-31-910-7240, Fax: 82-31-911-7241 E-mail: jhk0924@hanmail.net

Received 7 February 2014 Revised 18 April 2014 Accepted 5 September 2014

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the clinical features and compliance of cosmetic contact lens (CL)-related complications compared with soft CL-related complications.

Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review of 97 patients (194 eyes) regarded as having CL-related complications at the outpatient clinic. The portion of complications, gender, age, and chief complaints at the initial visit were analyzed, as was compliance to cosmetic and soft CL-related guidelines for use.

Results

A total of 97 patients (49 patients with cosmetic CL-related complications and 43 patients with soft CL-related complications) were evaluated. The mean age of the subjects using cosmetic CL was 19.8 years (14-31 years), and all the patients were female. The chief complaints at the initial visit included ocular pain, injection, blurred vision, dryness, itching and foreign body sensation. The main complications included corneal erosion, sterile corneal infiltrate, allergic disease, neovascularization, corneal ulcer and dry eye syndrome. No statistical difference was found regarding chief complaints or complications. The proportion of patients lost to follow-up was 47% in cosmetic CL-related and 20% in soft CL-related complications, a significant difference (p = 0.015).

Conclusions

Because young females are the most common CL patients and do not always fully comply with the guidelines for use, ophthalmologists need to warn these patients about the risk of serious complications.

Keywords: Compliance, Contact lens-related complication, Cosmetic contact lens, Soft contact lens

References

1. Kim JH, Song JS, Hyon JY, et al. A survey of contact lens-related complications in Korea: The Korean Contact Lens Study Society. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2014; 55:20–31.

2. Rah MJ, Schafer J, Zhang L, et al. A meta-analysis of studies on cosmetically tinted soft contact lenses. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013; 7:2037–42.

3. Steinemann TL, Pinninti U, Szczotka LB, et al. Ocular complications associated with the use of cosmetic contact lenses from unlicensed vendors. Eye Contact Lens. 2003; 29:196–200.

4. Park SJ, Lee SM, Kim MK, et al. Cosmetic contact lens-related complications: 9 cases. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:927–35.

5. Lee WJ, Yoon GS, Shyn KH. Corneal complications in contact lens wearer. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1996; 37:225–32.

6. Lee JS, Hahn TW, Choi SH, et al. Acanthamoeba keratitis related to cosmetic contact lenses. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2007; 35:775–7.

7. Choi TH, Kim HM, Cha HW, et al. Research on the current status of contact lenses in Korea. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2004; 45:1833–41.

8. Singh S, Satani D, Patel A, Vhankade R. Colored cosmetic contact lenses: an unsafe trend in the younger generation. Cornea. 2012; 31:777–9.

9. Hoddenbach JG, Boekhoorn SS, Wubbels R, et al. Clinical presentation and morbidity of contact lens-associated microbial keratitis: a retrospective study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014; 252:299–306.

10. Steinemann TL, Fletcher M, Bonny AE, et al. Over-the-counter decorative contact lenses: Cosmetic or Medical Devices? A Case Series. Eye Contact Lens. 2005; 31:194–200.

11. Ladage PM, Jester JV, Petroll WM, et al. Role of oxygen in corneal epithelial homeostasis during extended contact lens wear. Eye Contact Lens. 2003; 29:S2–6.

12. Song JS, Lee H, Kim JW, et al. The effects of cheap tinted contact lenses on corneal swelling and ocular surface inflammation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:1888–93.

13. Sauer A, Bourcier T. Microbial keratitis as a foreseeable complication of cosmetic contact lenses: a prospective study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011; 89:e439–42.

14. Ray M, Lim DK. A rare polymicrobial keratitis involving Chryseobacterium meningosepticum and Delftia acidovorans in a cosmetic contact lens wearer. Eye Contact Lens. 2013; 39:192–3.

Figure 1.

The distributions of lens type in eyes with contact lens-related complications. CCL = cosmetic contact lens; SCL = soft contact lens; RGP = rigid gas permeable lens; OK lens = orthokeratology lens.

Figure 2.

The distribution of symptoms at the initial visit in contact lens-related patient. CCL = cosmetic contact lens group; SCL = soft contact lens group.

Figure 3.

The distribution of com plications in contact lens-related patient. CCL = cosmetic contact lens group; SCL = soft contact lens group.

Figure 4.

log MAR BCVA at the initial visit compared with log MAR BCVA after therapy. BCVA = best corrected visual acuity; CCL = cosmetic contact lens group; SCL = soft contact lens group. ^*Statistical difference is shown by paired t-test between initial and final log MAR BCVA (p = 0.01 in CCL group, p < 0.001 in SCL group).

Table 1.

Comparison of baseline characteristics between cosmetic contact lens group and soft contact lens group

	CCL	SCL	p-value^*
	(n = 98)	(n = 86)	p-value^*
Sex (M/F)	0/98	22/64	<0.001^†
Age (years) (range)	19.8 ± 4.18	22.0 ± 4.53	0.01^‡
Age (years) (range)	(14-34)	(7-36)	0.01^‡
log MAR BCVA	0.10 ± 0.23	0.06 ± 0.15	0.208

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

CCL = cosmetic contact lens group; SCL = soft contact lens group; BCVA = best corrected visual acuity.

^* p-value less than 0.05 is considered statistically significant;

^† Statistically significant difference is shown in gender between CCL and SCL group by Linear-by-linear association test;

^‡ Age is statistically significant younger in CCL group than SCL group by independent sample t-test.

Table 2.

Distribution of subjects according to age group between cosmetic contact lens group and soft contact lens group

Age (years)	CCL (No. of eyes of patients, %)	SCL (No. of eyes of patients, %)	Total (No. of eyes of patients, %)
10-19	22 (44.8)	13 (30.2)	35 (38.0)
20-29	25 (51.0)	24 (55.8)	49 (53.2)
Above 30	2 (4.2)	6 (14.0)	8 (8.8)
Total	49 (100)	43 (100)	92 (100)

There is no statistically different distribution of age group according to lens group (p = 0.073 by Pearson chi square test). CCL = cosmetic contact lens group; SCL = soft contact lens group.

Table 3.

Statistically significant age groups related with com plication type

Complications	Age (years)	CCL (No. of eyes of patients)	SCL (No. of eyes of patients)	Total (No. of eyes of patients)
Sterile infiltration	10-19	8	6	14^*
	20-29	13	10	23^†
	Above 30	2	4	6
Corneal ulcer	10-19	2	3	5
	20-29	0	0	0
	Above 30	0	0	0

Statistically significantly different distribution of sterile infiltration according to age group.

CCL = cosmetic contact lens group; SCL = soft contact lens group.

^* 10-19 vs. above 30 p = 0.042;

^† 20-29 vs. above 30 p = 0.034 (p-value was determined by Scheffe test after ANOVA test).

Table 4.

Characteristics of noncompliant patients with medication and lens wearing schedule

Noncompliance	Patient	Lens	Age (years)	Sex	Initial log MAR BCVA	Complication	Chief complain	Symptom relief at last f/u (Y/N)
Medication	1	CCL	18	F	0.0	Corneal erosion	Injection	Y
	2	CCL	19	F	0.0	Allergic disease	Itching sense	N
	3	CCL	21	F	0.04	Dry eye syndrome	Dryness	N
	4	CCL	23	F	0.0	Sterile infiltration	Injection	Y
	5	SCL	16	M	0.0	Sterile infiltration	Injection	Y
	6	SCL	21	F	0.04	Sterile infiltration	Pain	Y
Lens wearing	7	CCL	17	F	0.15	Sterile infiltration	Pain	Y
schedule	8	CCL	20	F	0.0	Corneal erosion	Pain	Y
	9	CCL	28	F	0.04	Sterile infiltration	Injection	Y
	10	SCL	22	F	0.1	Sterile infiltration	Pain	Y
	11	SCL	30	F	0.4	Corneal erosion	Blurry vision	Y

CCL = cosmetic contact lens; SCL = soft contact lens; BCVA = best corrected visual acuity; f/u = follow up.

Table 5.

Comparison of follow-up loss according to lens type

	CCL	SCL	p-value^*
Total follow-up numbers	2.87 ± 1.89	2.69 ± 1.97	0.48
Total follow-up duration (days)	17.34 ± 4.87	15.67 ± 5.43	0.25
Patients loss to follow-up (% of total)	23 (47)	9 (9)	0.015^†

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

CCL = cosmetic contact lens group; SCL = soft contact lens group.

^* Fisher exact test;

^† There is significant difference in follow-up loss between CCL and SCL group.

Table 6.

Comparison of age and log MAR BCVA between follow up success group and follow-up failure group

	Failure	Success	p-value^*
	(n = 32)	(n = 50)	p-value^*
Age (years) (range)	19.88 ± 3.95	22.33 ± 4.76	0.043^†
Age (years) (range)	(14-27)	(16-36)	0.043^†
log MAR BCVA (at initial)	0.02 ± 0.10	0.05 ± 0.18	0.031^†

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

BCVA = best corrected visual acuity.

^* Independent sample t-test;

^† There is significant difference in age and log MAR BCVA between follow-up success group and failure group.

TOOLS

Similar articles