Use of a novel extended blink test to evaluate the performance of two polyvinylpyrrolidone-containing, silicone hydrogel contact lenses

Figures & data

Table 1 Habitual lenses of test subjects

Material	Brand name	Manufacturer	n
No lens			3*
Lotrafilcon B	Air Optix Night and Day	Alcon laboratories, Inc (Ft Worth, TX, USA)	2
Balafilcon A	PureVision2	Bausch and Lomb	2
	PureVision Multifocal/HA	Incorporated	2
	PureVision Multifocal/LA	(Rochester, NY, USA)	2
Hilafilcon B	SofLens Daily Disposable		2
Nesofilcon A	Biotrue ONEday		7*

Notes:

* One subject was a former lens wearer who had reverted to eyeglasses, while another subject wore no lens in one eye and a Biotrue ONEday lens in the contralateral eye. All other subjects wore the same lens in each eye. n = number of eyes.

Table 2 Self-reported duration of computer use (n = 10 subjects for each lens type)

Lens	Samfilcon A	Senofilcon A
Time, h	Frequency, %
1–2	0	0
3–5	30	20
6–8	60	70
9	10	10

Table 3 Lens performance characteristics after 16 hours of wear (n = 10 subjects for each lens type)

Lens	Samfilcon A		Senofilcon A		p-value
Variable	Mean	sdev	Mean	sdev
EBT, seconds	10.42	4.86	8.04	2.69	0.015
Visual quality	84.6	16.8	74.4	19.8	0.049
Comfort rating	85.9	24.4	80.2	21.6	0.40

Abbreviation: EBT, extended blink time.

Figure 1 Incidence of reported adverse symptoms of blurry/fluctuating vision, dry eyes, and tired eyes throughout the wearing day.

Notes: Copyright ©2016. Bausch and Lomb Incorporated. Reproduced from Epstein AB, Wilson B, Reindel WT. How visual performance influences patients’ perceptions of contact lens wear. CL Spectrum. 2016;31(13):20–25.²

EpsteinABWilsonBReindelWTHow visual performance influences patients’ perceptions of contact lens wearCL Spectrum201631132025

 Google Scholar