Posters - PAPILLARY RESPONSE IN CONTACT LENS PAPILLARY CONJUNCTIVITIS IS EITHER GENERAL OR LOCALISED

Home

This Month

Editorial
Market Utilization of Silicone Hydrogel Lenses up to 2010
> more

Meeting Synopsis
American Academy of Optometry 2009 Meeting, part 2
> more

Posters
UV Blocking Silicone Hydrogels prevent UV induced damage
> more

In The Practice
Endothelium and SiH lens fitting considerations
> more

Tell a friend

> Home
> About Us
> Affiliates
> Contact Us
> Disclaimer
> Site Map

Quick Vote:
What proportion of your new fits are with silicone hydrogel materials? click

Would you like to subscribe to our monthly newsletter? > click

The Silicone Hydrogels website is partially supported through an educational grant from CIBA VISION

Posters

March 2003

PAPILLARY RESPONSE IN CONTACT LENS PAPILLARY CONJUNCTIVITIS IS EITHER GENERAL OR LOCALISED

Sankaridurg P1, Sweeney D1, Naduvilath T2, Aasuri M, Holden B1, Rao GN2 Cooperative Research Centre for Eye Research and Technology, Sydney, Australia1; L.V.Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India2

Purpose:

To determine if during Contact Lens Papillary Conjunctivitis (CLPC), specific areas of the tarsal conjunctiva exhibit a papillary response which would help elucidate the aetiology.

Method:

In prospective trials conducted at India, 1,584 eyes of 792 subjects wore either low Dk disposable CL (FDA Groups Type I, II & IV) on a 6 night (N) or high Dk silicone CL on a 30N extended wear schedule. For examination, the upper tarsal conjunctiva was classified into 5 areas (Areas 1 to 3: central tarsus where Area 1 is closest to lid fold and Area 3 is closest to lid margin; Area 4: nasal and Area 5 is temporal). At CLPC, the location of papillae was determined and if scattered across the tarsus, the response was "General" and if located in specific areas, it was "Local". Also, tarsal roughness in each area was graded on a 0-4 scale (0=no roughness & 4=severe) and the baseline (BL) data was compared to at CLPC using Grouped t-test.

Results:

Of the 68 CLPC events, 39 (57%) were categorised as 'General' and the other 29 (42%) were 'Local'. Roughness was slight at BL in all areas and statistically significant increases were seen at event for all areas (p< 0.05). However >1 grade roughness was seen for "General" in Areas 1,2,3& 5 and "Local" in Areas 2 & 3 and corresponded to the location of the papillae.

Conclusions:

There are 2 presentations of CLPC: a) general involving the entire tarsus excepting nasal and b) local involving the central tarsal conjunctiva proximal to lid margin. The local response suggests that mechanical trauma from the CL edge, defects or junctions could possibly plays a role. The aetiology of 'General' is less clear and it is possible that these factors or other unknown factors are responsible.

Download PDF of Poster:

PAPILLARY RESPONSE IN CONTACT LENS PAPILLARY CONJUNCTIVITIS IS EITHER GENERAL OR LOCALISED - 117 KB

You will need Version 4 or later of Adobe Acrobat Reader to view some documents on this site. You can get the latest version from the Adobe Home site.