Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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):174–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):6679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1172–1177

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):54–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):147–151

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):758–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):296–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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–S79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):594–600

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):933–940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):536–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):e11119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1319–1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):1671–1680

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):168–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):306–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):143–146

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):117–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):234–243

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1982–1988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):2361–2367

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):688–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):e105575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):85–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):302–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant to carry out Projects in Emerging Fields of Research of the University of Alicante (GRE11-22). The sponsor or funding organization had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Public Health Research Group, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain

    Ana Tauste, Elena Ronda & María-del-Mar Seguí Crespo

  2. Department of Ophthalmology (Qvision), Vithas Virgen del Mar Hospital, Almería, Spain

    Ana Tauste

  3. Preventive Medicine and Public Health Area, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain

    Elena Ronda

  4. CISAL (Centre for Research in Occupational Health), Barcelona, Spain

    Elena Ronda

  5. CIBERESP (Biomedical Research Networking Centre, Epidemiology and Public Health), Madrid, Spain

    Elena Ronda

  6. Uni Research Health, Bergen, Norway

    Valborg Baste

  7. Research Group for Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Valborg Baste & Magne Bråtveit

  8. Centre for International Health, Deparment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Bente E. Moen

  9. Department of Optics, Pharmacology and Anatomy, University of Alicante, Carretera San Vicente del Raspeig s/n, San Vicente del Raspeig, 03690, Alicante, Spain

    María-del-Mar Seguí Crespo

Authors
  1. Ana Tauste
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elena Ronda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Valborg Baste
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Magne Bråtveit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bente E. Moen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. María-del-Mar Seguí Crespo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María-del-Mar Seguí Crespo.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This work was supported by a grant to carry out Projects in Emerging Fields of Research of the University of Alicante (GRE11-22). The sponsor or funding organization had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest and have no proprietary interest in any of the materials mentioned in this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tauste, A., Ronda, E., Baste, V. et al. Ocular surface and tear film status among contact lens wearers and non-wearers who use VDT at work: comparing three different lens types. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 91, 327–335 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-017-1283-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-017-1283-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation