Abstract
Background. The first contact lens was created by F.A. Muller in 1887. Currently, contact lenses are the most popular method of correcting vision defects, available for every age group. The use of one-day lenses is recommended by ophthalmologists as one of the most comfortable and healthiest types of contact correction. They were created to improve the quality of life of people with visual impairments. Identification of factors that may contribute to the feeling of discomfort in the use of contact lenses, as well as their modification is important from the point of view of quality of life but also due to the economic aspect. Objectives. Evaluation of the satisfaction of people using contact lenses in everyday life. Material and methods. 102 people were enrolled in the study for a medical consultation in an eye center. To collect the data, a questionnaire of its own was used, consisting of four socio-demographic questions and 20 questions referring to the sense of contentment and the use of lenses in everyday life. The p values < 0.05 were assumed to be statistically significant in the results. Results. 102 people participated in the study, including 63 women and 39 men. Most people (47%) were between 18 and 25 years of age. 65% of the study group declared satisfaction with the use of contact lenses. The largest number of patients use monthly lenses (41%). The majority declared that the lenses used are properly selected (61%). It has been noted that the high level of satisfaction is related to the material from which the contact lenses are made (r = 0.518295; p < 0.05), the appropriate choice of lenses (r = 0.795047; p < 0.05), the choice of lenses by ophthalmologist (r = 0.775176; p < 0.05), observing the manufacturer’s instructions regarding the wearing time of the lenses (r = 0.750783; p < 0.05), with information on the use of lenses that were provided by doctor or nurse (r = 0.561181; p < 0.05). Conclusions. 1. Patients feel satisfaction with the use of contact lenses. 2. Factors that positively influence the satisfaction are: the material of the lenses, the choice of the ophthalmologist, compliance with the manufacturer’s instructions, education by a nurse or a doctor. 3. Negative influencing factors are: keeping the lenses at night, the necessity of the daily putting on/removing of the lenses and the need for periodic attaching of the glasses.References
Gasson A, Morris JA. Contact lens, manual a practical guide to fitting. Edinburgh: Elsevier; 2010: 103–118.
Giles T, Perez-Gomez I, Hudson C. Nowe granice w jednodniowych soczewkach kontaktowych. Optyka 2014; 2(27): 60–62.
Sulley A, Osborn Lorenz K, Jubin P. Łatwość zakładania i zdejmowania: niedoceniany element w udanym użytkowaniu soczewek kontaktowych. Optyka 2014; 2(27): 61–63.
Lievens CW. Na powierzchni: soczewki silikonowo-hydrożelowe i osady lipidowe. Optyka 2015; 2(33): 54–55.
Morgan P. Trends in UK contact lens prescribing. Optician 2008; 235(6155): 18–19.
Dart JK, Radford CF, Minassian D, et al. Risk factors for microbial keratitis with contemporary contact lenses: a case-control study. Ophthalmology 2008; 115(10): 1647–1662.
Barr J. Naciekowe zapalenie rogówki wczoraj i dziś. Optyka 2012; 5(18): 55–56.
Szczotka-Flynn L, Lass JH, Sethi A, et al. Risk factors for corneal infiltrative events during continuous wear of silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51(11): 5421–5430.
Kislan KP, Hom MM. Corneal infiltrates with multipurpose solutions and contact lens combinations. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51(13): 3424.
Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliott DB. The contact lens impact on quality of life (CLIQ) questionnaire: development and validation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47(7): 2789–2796.
Young G. Why one million contact lens wearers dropped out. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2004; 27(2): 83–85.
Ozek D, Kemer OE, Bayraktar N. Hydro cone lens visual performance and impact on quality of life in irregular corneas. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2016; 39(6): 458–460.
Picot C, Gauthier AS, Campolmi N, et al. Quality of life in patients wearing scleral lenses. J Fr Ophtalmol 2015; 38(7): 615–619.
Yildiz EH, Erdurmus M, Elibol ES, et al. Contact lens impact on quality of life in keratoconus patients: rigid gas permeable versus soft silicone-hydrogel keratoconus lenses. Int J Ophthalmol 2015; 18(5): 1074–1077.
Aslam A. What drives vision correction purchases? Optician 2014; 247(6458): 16–20.
Gasson A, Morris JA. Contact lens, manual a practical guide to fitting. Edinburgh: Elsevier; 2010: 261–274.
Morgan P. Contact lens compliance and reducing the risk of keratitis. Optica 2007; 6: 20–25.
Dumbelton K, Woods C, Jones L, et al. Patient and practitioner compliance with silicone hygrogel and daily disposable lens replacement in the United States. Eye Contact Lens 2009; 35(4): 164–171.
Dumbelton K, Woods C, Jondes L, et al. Comfort and vision with silicone hydrohel lenses: effect of compliance. Optom Vis Sci 2010; 87(6): 421–425.
Mathews K, Daigle B, Alford J, et al. Exploring variability in soft contact lens performance throughout the day. Optician 2015; 251(6543): 32–34.
Woźniak PA. Oddziaływanie płynów do pielęgnacji soczewek kontaktowych na stan powierzchni oka u pacjenta kontaktologicznego. Ophthatherapy 2016; 2(10): 146–150.