# Effects of Medium-Term Soft Contact Lens Fitting on Dry Eye: Analyses Using Ultra-High Resolution Optical Coherence Tomography and Digital Slit-Lamp Biomicroscopy

Authors: Yuzhou Wang; Zhiqiang Xu; Shuangjiao Chen; Yangyang Xu; Linzhi Wei; Fan Lu; Liang Hu
Journal: Disease Markers
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Purpose. This study aimed to evaluate the medium-term fit of soft contact lenses (SCLs) and its effects on dry eye by using ultra-high-resolution optical coherence tomography (UHR-OCT) and digital slit-lamp biomicroscopy (DSLB) and identify factors indicating a better contact lens fit. Methods. A total of 14 participants (7 men, 7 women; mean age, 23.1 years) were recruited. Temporal lag and conjunctival coverage were imaged by UHR-OCT. DSLB was used to assess lens decentration and blink-induced movement. In addition, dry eye indices, including ocular surface disease index (OSDI), tear break-up time (TBUT), and Schirmer I test scores, were measured at baseline and 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after wearing. Results. Good repeatability was found in the assessments of lens fit characteristics by two researchers and in the assessments by one researcher at different follow-up times. There were no significant differences in lens fit characteristics, TBUT and Schirmer I test scores at each checkpoint (P >0.05). However, the OSDI was significantly higher than baseline after wearing (P <0.05). Changes in the temporal lag were positively correlated with changes in TBUT (r =0.544, P =0.044) and negatively correlated with changes in OSDI (r = -0.629, P =0.016). Changes in blink-induced movement were positively correlated with changes in OSDI, Schirmer I test scores, and TBUT (P <0.05). Conclusions. UHR-OCT and DSLB can be used to comprehensively and quantitatively evaluate SCL fit. Both the contact lenses and ocular surface conditions are almost stable within 6 months of SCL wear. Temporal lag and blink-induced movement have a strong correlation with dry eye parameters in SCL wearers.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Over the last 40 years, contact lenses (CLs) have become increasingly popular in correcting refractive errors. At present, about 140 million people worldwide use CLs [1]. Several studies have indicated that approximately 30%-50% of lens wearers report dry eye and discomfort that prevents them from wearing CLs continuously [2, 3], and 25% of wearers will permanently cease wearing CLs as a result [4]. Numerous factors are associated with CL-induced dry eye, such as lens material, design, care systems, and replacement frequencies [5]. In addition, poor lens fit also plays an important part in the discomfort caused by lens wearing and the subsequent discontinuation [6]. Lens mobility is generally believed to be correlated with tear exchange [7]. Proper lens fit facilitates tear exchange underneath the lens and the removal of debris, inflammatory cells, and dead cells, which can improve the safety and comfort of CL wear and also extend the life cycle of CLs [4, 8].In clinical practice, assessments of soft CL (SCL) fit are limited to evaluation of lens centration and corneal coverage, movement, surface wettability, and subjective comfort [7]. Although this approach is more intuitive, it still has some limitations. First, it is highly subjective and requires long-term clinical experience of the fitting physicians. Moreover, the assessments may be inadequate due to the lack of static landmarks and quantification of movement at the micrometer level [9]. In addition, this approach only assesses the overall fit, and the edge-fitting properties remain unknown. The interaction between the ocular surface and the lens edge may play a significant role in wearing comfort and in the health of the ocular surface [10]. Therefore, it is necessary to characterize the edge fitting of SCLs, which can improve our understanding of the relationship between lens properties and the ocular surface.A number of studies have attempted to evaluate SCL fit to date. Young [11] measured lens centration, blink-induced lens movement, and lag using a slit-lamp microscope fitted with an eyepiece graticule. The results confirmed that most of the characteristics were poorly predictive of lens fit when used alone. However, this study involved multiple types of SCLs and used relatively rough measurement methods. Wolffsohn et al. [12] performed a comprehensive objective evaluation of lens fit in primary and multiple other positions of gaze by using DSLB providing 6× magnification (JAI C-S2300; resolution, 767 × 569 pixels), showing that movement on blink in up-gaze, horizontal lag, and push-up recovery speed were the key metrics to independently characterize SCL mobility. Belda-Salmerón et al. [7] used the same apparatus to assess objectively SCL fit characteristics and demonstrated that objective image analysis allowed an accurate, reliable, and repeatable assessment.Because of the lack of suitable tools, there is very little published evidence that quantitatively characterizes the edge-fitting properties of SCLs. Wang et al. [13] successfully observed tear distribution and dynamics in CL wearers using ultra-high-resolution optical coherence tomography (UHR-OCT) for the first time, which suggested that UHR-OCT might yield new ways of evaluating CL fit. On the basis of this finding, Shen et al. [10] attempted to characterize lens edge fitting through UHR-OCT and proposed the concept of conjunctival coverage. The percentage of the lens edge covered by the conjunctiva was categorized by an analog ranking scale of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%. Turhan [14] measured the angle of conjunctival indentation and determined the effect of lens power on the lens fit characteristics by using the RTVue OCT system. To the best of our knowledge, this was the first study to demonstrate quantitative assessment of conjunctival indentation. Cui et al. [15] compared the horizontal lag and blink-induced lens movement of four different types of soft CLs using UHR-OCT. They found that the horizontal lag in nasal gaze and temporal gaze showed good correlation and consistency. In addition, the study visualized the footprint of SCLs in micrometer dimensions for the first time, providing additional information on the amount of movement that resulted from blinking.However, most of the SCL fit studies are methodological studies. The interaction between fit properties and dry eye indicators has not been analyzed. It is also unknown how these indicators change over time in medium-term wearers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fit characteristics of SCLs and study the changes in indices included after medium-term SCL wearing.


## 2. Subjects and Methods

### 2.1. Subjects and CLs

Eighteen subjects from Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University participated in the present study; three subjects dropped out at 1 month and one subject dropped out at 3 months because of work-related stress. Finally, 14 subjects (14 right eyes) were included in this study. The study group consisted of seven men and seven women (age, 23.1 ± 1.6 years [mean ± SD]). None of the subjects had a history of SCLs wearing or ocular surgery or any current ocular or systemic diseases other than refractive errors. The study was approved by the Human Sciences Ethical Committee of The Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University (approval no. of ethics committee: KYK-2018-23) and followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number:ChiCTR1800018001). Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects after receiving a full explanation of the content and possible consequences of the study. BAUSCH+LOMB SoftLens 59 (Hilafilcon b, 59% water content, 8.6 mm base curve, 14.2 mm diameter) was used in this study. All the subjects wore SCLs according to the degree of subjective refraction and corneal curvature for 6 months on a full-time, daily wear basis (minimum 8 h/day; minimum 5 days per week). CL fit characteristics and dry eye-related indices were measured at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the subjects started wearing the SCLs.


### 2.2. Dry Eye Examination

Subjective questionnaire: ocular surface disease index was used to evaluate the subjective sensation related to dry eyes. The larger the value, the more obvious the ocular surface discomfort.After a drop of normal saline, a single fluorescein strip (Jingming, Tianjin, China) was gently placed on the lower eyelid conjunctiva to measure TBUT. The subjects were asked to blink three times and then open their eyes wide. The time of the first corneal black spot on the stained tear film was measured and repeated three times to take the average value.Schirmer I test was performed by folding the Schirmer paper strip (Jingming, Tianjin, China) at the notch and hooking the folding end to the lateral third of the lower lid margin without topical anesthesia. The score is the wetted length measured from the notch after 5 minutes.


### 2.3. Lens Fit Characteristics

A custom-built UHR-OCT unit with a resolution of approximately 3μm was used to image each contact lens on the eyes. The accuracy and repeatability of the instrument have been confirmed in a previous study [10, 16]. All images were taken in a laboratory under controlled temperature (15°C–25°C) and humidity (30%–50%) [17]. Each subject was scheduled to be examined after 10 am to avoid the corneal edema and tear film alterations caused by sleep [18, 19].Subjects were instructed to look straight at the fixation target first, which was placed in the front of the eye for primary gaze, and the OCT detector was moved 45° to the temporal side of the right eye to image the temporal lag and conjunctival coverage. Then, the subject looked at the fixation target placed 45° nasally, and the lens edge at the temporal side was imaged. Using the ending of Bowman’s layer at the limbus and the lens edge as reference points, temporal lag was defined as the difference between the linear distances measured while gazing forward and nasally (Figure1). Conjunctival coverage was defined as the vertical linear distance between the lens edge and anterior surface of the cornea (h). Commercial software (MATLAB R2015b, The MathWorks, Inc; ImageJ, ver. 1.51w) was used to perform image processing and determine the temporal lag and conjunctival coverage.Figure 1
Ultra-high-resolution OCT images of temporal lag and conjunctival coverage. Two landmarks were used in image processing. One was the ending of the Bowman’s layer at the limbus (a), and the other was the contact lens edge (b). Lens location was defined as the linear distance (d) between “a” and “b,” which was different in primary gaze and nasal gaze. This difference represented the temporal lag. The vertical distance from the edge of the contact lens (c) to the surface of the cornea (d) represents the conjunctival coverage. Bars =500μm.A slit-lamp biomicroscope (SLM-4ER; KANGHUA, Chongqing City, China) equipped with a digital camera (60D; Canon, Tokyo, Japan) was used to capture images of SCLs when subjects looked straight ahead. The eyelids were not pulled to avoid changing the lens position. Three continuous high-definition images were obtained, and ImageJ software was used to quantitatively analyze the lens eccentricity (Figure2). A circle was drawn along the edge of the pupil and lens, respectively, and the coordinate parameters of the two centers were obtained. The differences in the X- and y-axes were the amount of eccentricity in the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively. Total decentration was calculated using the Pythagoras theorem. A ruler was imaged through the same slit-lamp and camera system, and calibration was performed by considering 1 pixel as equivalent to 0.004 mm.Figure 2
Digital slit-lamp biomicroscopic images of decentration. The two red circles are the edges of the lens and the pupil, and the two red dots are the center of the lens and the pupil. The difference (x1-x2) in thex-axis is the amount of eccentricity in the horizontal direction, and the difference (y1-y2) in the y-axis is the amount of eccentricity in the vertical direction. S, upper; I, lower; T, temporal side; N, nasal side. Bars =1 mm.Videos were captured to visualize lens movement induced by blinking using the same DSLB providing 10x magnification (resolution 640 x 480 pixels, frame rate 60 Hz). Subjects were asked to look straight ahead during the open-eye period and immediately after every blink. The lower eyelid was pulled down a little if the lower edge of the lens was not fully exposed. Using specific software to convert the videos into images and trace the footprint of the lower lens edge, blink-induced movement was assessed by determining the changes in vertical lens position relative to the lower corneal margin from the first video frame after the blink until the lens had stabilized. A ruler was imaged under the same shooting conditions, and calibration was performed by considering 1 pixel to be equivalent to 0.032 mm. All parameters were measured three times and averaged. The data of the four lens fit indicators for 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month after wearing SCLs were independently processed by two researchers, and inter-researcher repeatability was evaluated. One researcher repeated the image processing two weeks later, and intra-researcher repeatability was evaluated.


### 2.4. Statistical Analysis

SPSS version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for statistical analysis. All of the data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) values. The inter- and intra-researcher differences in assessments of temporal lag, conjunctival coverage, decentration, and blink-induced movement were plotted versus the average on Bland–Altman plots for comparison. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to evaluate the normality of the data distribution. The inter-researcher and intra-researcher differences were assessed by means of an independent t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the changes in the values of each index at different follow-up times. Pearson correlation or Spearman correlation was used to analyze the correlation between these indicators. The results were considered statistically significant when thep value was less than 0.05.


## 2.1. Subjects and CLs

Eighteen subjects from Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University participated in the present study; three subjects dropped out at 1 month and one subject dropped out at 3 months because of work-related stress. Finally, 14 subjects (14 right eyes) were included in this study. The study group consisted of seven men and seven women (age, 23.1 ± 1.6 years [mean ± SD]). None of the subjects had a history of SCLs wearing or ocular surgery or any current ocular or systemic diseases other than refractive errors. The study was approved by the Human Sciences Ethical Committee of The Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University (approval no. of ethics committee: KYK-2018-23) and followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number:ChiCTR1800018001). Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects after receiving a full explanation of the content and possible consequences of the study. BAUSCH+LOMB SoftLens 59 (Hilafilcon b, 59% water content, 8.6 mm base curve, 14.2 mm diameter) was used in this study. All the subjects wore SCLs according to the degree of subjective refraction and corneal curvature for 6 months on a full-time, daily wear basis (minimum 8 h/day; minimum 5 days per week). CL fit characteristics and dry eye-related indices were measured at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the subjects started wearing the SCLs.


## 2.2. Dry Eye Examination

Subjective questionnaire: ocular surface disease index was used to evaluate the subjective sensation related to dry eyes. The larger the value, the more obvious the ocular surface discomfort.After a drop of normal saline, a single fluorescein strip (Jingming, Tianjin, China) was gently placed on the lower eyelid conjunctiva to measure TBUT. The subjects were asked to blink three times and then open their eyes wide. The time of the first corneal black spot on the stained tear film was measured and repeated three times to take the average value.Schirmer I test was performed by folding the Schirmer paper strip (Jingming, Tianjin, China) at the notch and hooking the folding end to the lateral third of the lower lid margin without topical anesthesia. The score is the wetted length measured from the notch after 5 minutes.


## 2.3. Lens Fit Characteristics

A custom-built UHR-OCT unit with a resolution of approximately 3μm was used to image each contact lens on the eyes. The accuracy and repeatability of the instrument have been confirmed in a previous study [10, 16]. All images were taken in a laboratory under controlled temperature (15°C–25°C) and humidity (30%–50%) [17]. Each subject was scheduled to be examined after 10 am to avoid the corneal edema and tear film alterations caused by sleep [18, 19].Subjects were instructed to look straight at the fixation target first, which was placed in the front of the eye for primary gaze, and the OCT detector was moved 45° to the temporal side of the right eye to image the temporal lag and conjunctival coverage. Then, the subject looked at the fixation target placed 45° nasally, and the lens edge at the temporal side was imaged. Using the ending of Bowman’s layer at the limbus and the lens edge as reference points, temporal lag was defined as the difference between the linear distances measured while gazing forward and nasally (Figure1). Conjunctival coverage was defined as the vertical linear distance between the lens edge and anterior surface of the cornea (h). Commercial software (MATLAB R2015b, The MathWorks, Inc; ImageJ, ver. 1.51w) was used to perform image processing and determine the temporal lag and conjunctival coverage.Figure 1
Ultra-high-resolution OCT images of temporal lag and conjunctival coverage. Two landmarks were used in image processing. One was the ending of the Bowman’s layer at the limbus (a), and the other was the contact lens edge (b). Lens location was defined as the linear distance (d) between “a” and “b,” which was different in primary gaze and nasal gaze. This difference represented the temporal lag. The vertical distance from the edge of the contact lens (c) to the surface of the cornea (d) represents the conjunctival coverage. Bars =500μm.A slit-lamp biomicroscope (SLM-4ER; KANGHUA, Chongqing City, China) equipped with a digital camera (60D; Canon, Tokyo, Japan) was used to capture images of SCLs when subjects looked straight ahead. The eyelids were not pulled to avoid changing the lens position. Three continuous high-definition images were obtained, and ImageJ software was used to quantitatively analyze the lens eccentricity (Figure2). A circle was drawn along the edge of the pupil and lens, respectively, and the coordinate parameters of the two centers were obtained. The differences in the X- and y-axes were the amount of eccentricity in the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively. Total decentration was calculated using the Pythagoras theorem. A ruler was imaged through the same slit-lamp and camera system, and calibration was performed by considering 1 pixel as equivalent to 0.004 mm.Figure 2
Digital slit-lamp biomicroscopic images of decentration. The two red circles are the edges of the lens and the pupil, and the two red dots are the center of the lens and the pupil. The difference (x1-x2) in thex-axis is the amount of eccentricity in the horizontal direction, and the difference (y1-y2) in the y-axis is the amount of eccentricity in the vertical direction. S, upper; I, lower; T, temporal side; N, nasal side. Bars =1 mm.Videos were captured to visualize lens movement induced by blinking using the same DSLB providing 10x magnification (resolution 640 x 480 pixels, frame rate 60 Hz). Subjects were asked to look straight ahead during the open-eye period and immediately after every blink. The lower eyelid was pulled down a little if the lower edge of the lens was not fully exposed. Using specific software to convert the videos into images and trace the footprint of the lower lens edge, blink-induced movement was assessed by determining the changes in vertical lens position relative to the lower corneal margin from the first video frame after the blink until the lens had stabilized. A ruler was imaged under the same shooting conditions, and calibration was performed by considering 1 pixel to be equivalent to 0.032 mm. All parameters were measured three times and averaged. The data of the four lens fit indicators for 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month after wearing SCLs were independently processed by two researchers, and inter-researcher repeatability was evaluated. One researcher repeated the image processing two weeks later, and intra-researcher repeatability was evaluated.


## 2.4. Statistical Analysis

SPSS version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for statistical analysis. All of the data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) values. The inter- and intra-researcher differences in assessments of temporal lag, conjunctival coverage, decentration, and blink-induced movement were plotted versus the average on Bland–Altman plots for comparison. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to evaluate the normality of the data distribution. The inter-researcher and intra-researcher differences were assessed by means of an independent t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the changes in the values of each index at different follow-up times. Pearson correlation or Spearman correlation was used to analyze the correlation between these indicators. The results were considered statistically significant when thep value was less than 0.05.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Methodological Repeatability Analysis

The inter- and intra-researcher differences in the four CL fitting characteristics at different follow-up periods showed no statistical significance (Table1, Table 2). Bland–Altman plots are shown in Figures 3–8.Table 1
The repeatability of four contact lens fitting characteristics between two researchers.
VariablesPost 1 dayPost 1 weekPost 1 monthMean differenceSD of the differencePMean differenceSD of the differencePMean differenceSD of the differencePTemporal lag (mm)0.0040.1190.900-0.0100.1230.770-0.0040.0740.975ConjunctivalCoverage (mm)-0.0030.0100.4840.0040.0140.343-0.0000.0050.836Decentration (mm)-0.0540.1140.062-0.0290.1310.2450.0180.0790.418Blink-inducedMovement (mm)0.0020.0070.4650.0010.0080.863-0.0030.0250.865SD: standard deviation.Table 2
The repeatability of the four fitting characteristics between two time periods.
VariablesPost 1 dayPost 1 weekPost 1 monthMean differenceSD of the differencePMean differenceSD of the differencePMean differenceSD of the differencePTemporal lag (mm)-0.0190.0610.2620.0110.0550.482-0.0050.0740.778ConjunctivalCoverage (mm)0.0020.0100.6090.0020.0060.1940.0020.0060.275Decentration (mm)-0.0530.0960.062-0.0130.0560.638-0.0060.0520.674Blink-inducedMovement (mm)0.0010.0030.4140.0000.0070.608-0.0010.0050.273SD: standard deviation.Figure 3
Bland–Altman plots of inter-observer repeatability for the four contact lens fit characteristics after lens wearing for 1 day. Solid line = mean, dashed lines =95% confidence interval, N =14 eyes.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 4
Bland–Altman plots of intra-observer repeatability for the four contact lens fit characteristics after lens wearing for 1 day. Solid line = mean, dashed lines =95% confidence interval, N =14 eyes.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 5
Bland–Altman plots of inter-observer repeatability for the four contact lens fit characteristics after lens wearing for 1 week. Solid line = mean, dashed lines =95% confidence interval, N =14 eyes.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 6
Bland–Altman plots of intra-observer repeatability for the four contact lens fit characteristics after lens wearing for 1 week. Solid line = mean, dashed lines =95% confidence interval, N =14 eyes.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 7
Bland–Altman plots of inter-observer repeatability for the four contact lens fit characteristics after lens wearing for 1 month. Solid line = mean, dashed lines =95% confidence interval, N =14 eyes.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 8
Bland–Altman plots of intra-observer repeatability for the four contact lens fit characteristics after lens wearing for 1 month. Solid line = mean, dashed lines =95% confidence interval, N =14 eyes.
(a)(b)(c)(d)


### 3.2. Changes in Fitting Characteristics after Wearing CLs

Temporal lag, conjunctival coverage, decentration, and blink-induced movement at different time points after wearing CLs showed no significant differences (Table3).Table 3
Comparison of the four contact lens fitting characteristics at different time points.
VariablesAfter wearing contact lensF valueP value1 day1 week1 month3month6monthTemporal lag (mm)0.367 ± 0.2250.365 ± 0.2550.410 ± 0.4130.262 ± 0.2170.233 ± 0.1351.570>0.05ConjunctivalCoverage (mm)0.084 ± 0.0420.093 ± 0.0420.082 ± 0.0330.083 ± 0.0360.083 ± 0.0240.792>0.05Decentration (mm)0.864 ± 0.3490.986 ± 0.4750.876 ± 0.4860.745 ± 0.2820.763 ± 0.2672.143>0.05Blink-inducedMovement (mm)0.114 ± 0.1930.071 ± 0.0980.079 ± 0.1840.200 ± 0.3460.036 ± 0.0991.539>0.05Values are mean ± SD.


### 3.3. Changes in Dry Eye Indices after Wearing CLs

The OSDI values at different time points after wearing CLs showed significant differences in comparison with the baseline results. Schirmer I test scores and TBUT at baseline and different time points after wearing CLs showed no significant differences (Table4).Table 4
Comparison of three dry eye indices at different time points.
VariablesBefore and after wearing contact lensF valueP valueBaseline1 day1 week1 month3month6monthOSDI8.4 ± 1.922.6 ± 4.424.3 ± 3.126.3 ± 3.924.6 ± 4.824.8 ± 3.56.118<0.001Schirmer I test (mm)15.4 ± 12.214.0 ± 10.512.4 ± 10.613.4 ± 10.116.0 ± 12.717.0 ± 11.91.364>0.05TBUT (s)5.3 ± 1.13.7 ± 0.53.8 ± 0.74.4 ± 1.34.0 ± 0.73.5 ± 0.50.848>0.05OSDI = ocular surface disease index; TBUT = tear break-up time. Values are mean ± SD.


### 3.4. Correlation of Dry Eye Indices and CL Fitting Characteristics

Changes in the temporal lag three months after wearing CLs were positively correlated with changes in TBUT (P < .05; Table5). Changes in the temporal lag 6 months after wearing CLs were negatively correlated with changes in OSDI (P < .05; Table 5). Changes in the blink-induced movement one week after wearing CLs were positively correlated with changes in OSDI, Schirmer I test scores, and TBUT (P < .05; Table 5). Changes in the blink-induced movement 6 months after wearing CLs were positively correlated with changes in OSDI and TBUT (P < .05; Table 5). There were no correlations between changes in conjunctival coverage and dry eye indices at any time points after wearing CLs, nor were there any correlations between changes in decentration and dry eye indices (Table 5).Table 5
The correlation of dry eye indices and CL fitting characteristics at different time points.
Temporal lag△1wConjunctival coverage△1wDecentration △1wBlink-induced movement△1wrprprprpOSDI△1w-0.4730.0880.1390.6360.1780.5430.6140.020∗Schirmer I test △1w-0.3060.288-0.1290.661-0.3880.1710.5700.033∗TBUT△1w-0.0730.805-0.3170.269-0.3740.1870.7300.003∗OSDI△1 m-0.4810.0820.4840.080.4230.1310.2330.422Schirmer I test △1 m-0.2020.4880.2580.3730.1310.6550.1670.569TBUT△1 m-0.3240.259-0.4100.146-0.1370.6420.1500.608OSDI△3 m-0.4070.1480.1400.6330.4610.0970.1190.686Schirmer I test △3 m-0.3450.2280.0870.768-0.0510.861-0.1700.560TBUT△3 m0.5440.044∗-0.2590.3720.1640.575-0.0270.928OSDI△6 m-0.6290.016∗0.1300.6580.4500.1060.5770.031∗Schirmer I test △6 m-0.1720.555-0.1340.648-0.0330.9110.0610.836TBUT△6 m-0.2460.3960.2070.4780.1770.5460.5330.050∗OSDI = ocular surface disease index; TBUT = tear break-up time. △value of dry eye indices: the difference between baseline and each time point. △value of CL fitting characteristics: the difference between 1 day and each time point. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was used to analyze the associations between variables.∗: P <0.05.


## 3.1. Methodological Repeatability Analysis

The inter- and intra-researcher differences in the four CL fitting characteristics at different follow-up periods showed no statistical significance (Table1, Table 2). Bland–Altman plots are shown in Figures 3–8.Table 1
The repeatability of four contact lens fitting characteristics between two researchers.
VariablesPost 1 dayPost 1 weekPost 1 monthMean differenceSD of the differencePMean differenceSD of the differencePMean differenceSD of the differencePTemporal lag (mm)0.0040.1190.900-0.0100.1230.770-0.0040.0740.975ConjunctivalCoverage (mm)-0.0030.0100.4840.0040.0140.343-0.0000.0050.836Decentration (mm)-0.0540.1140.062-0.0290.1310.2450.0180.0790.418Blink-inducedMovement (mm)0.0020.0070.4650.0010.0080.863-0.0030.0250.865SD: standard deviation.Table 2
The repeatability of the four fitting characteristics between two time periods.
VariablesPost 1 dayPost 1 weekPost 1 monthMean differenceSD of the differencePMean differenceSD of the differencePMean differenceSD of the differencePTemporal lag (mm)-0.0190.0610.2620.0110.0550.482-0.0050.0740.778ConjunctivalCoverage (mm)0.0020.0100.6090.0020.0060.1940.0020.0060.275Decentration (mm)-0.0530.0960.062-0.0130.0560.638-0.0060.0520.674Blink-inducedMovement (mm)0.0010.0030.4140.0000.0070.608-0.0010.0050.273SD: standard deviation.Figure 3
Bland–Altman plots of inter-observer repeatability for the four contact lens fit characteristics after lens wearing for 1 day. Solid line = mean, dashed lines =95% confidence interval, N =14 eyes.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 4
Bland–Altman plots of intra-observer repeatability for the four contact lens fit characteristics after lens wearing for 1 day. Solid line = mean, dashed lines =95% confidence interval, N =14 eyes.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 5
Bland–Altman plots of inter-observer repeatability for the four contact lens fit characteristics after lens wearing for 1 week. Solid line = mean, dashed lines =95% confidence interval, N =14 eyes.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 6
Bland–Altman plots of intra-observer repeatability for the four contact lens fit characteristics after lens wearing for 1 week. Solid line = mean, dashed lines =95% confidence interval, N =14 eyes.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 7
Bland–Altman plots of inter-observer repeatability for the four contact lens fit characteristics after lens wearing for 1 month. Solid line = mean, dashed lines =95% confidence interval, N =14 eyes.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 8
Bland–Altman plots of intra-observer repeatability for the four contact lens fit characteristics after lens wearing for 1 month. Solid line = mean, dashed lines =95% confidence interval, N =14 eyes.
(a)(b)(c)(d)


## 3.2. Changes in Fitting Characteristics after Wearing CLs

Temporal lag, conjunctival coverage, decentration, and blink-induced movement at different time points after wearing CLs showed no significant differences (Table3).Table 3
Comparison of the four contact lens fitting characteristics at different time points.
VariablesAfter wearing contact lensF valueP value1 day1 week1 month3month6monthTemporal lag (mm)0.367 ± 0.2250.365 ± 0.2550.410 ± 0.4130.262 ± 0.2170.233 ± 0.1351.570>0.05ConjunctivalCoverage (mm)0.084 ± 0.0420.093 ± 0.0420.082 ± 0.0330.083 ± 0.0360.083 ± 0.0240.792>0.05Decentration (mm)0.864 ± 0.3490.986 ± 0.4750.876 ± 0.4860.745 ± 0.2820.763 ± 0.2672.143>0.05Blink-inducedMovement (mm)0.114 ± 0.1930.071 ± 0.0980.079 ± 0.1840.200 ± 0.3460.036 ± 0.0991.539>0.05Values are mean ± SD.


## 3.3. Changes in Dry Eye Indices after Wearing CLs

The OSDI values at different time points after wearing CLs showed significant differences in comparison with the baseline results. Schirmer I test scores and TBUT at baseline and different time points after wearing CLs showed no significant differences (Table4).Table 4
Comparison of three dry eye indices at different time points.
VariablesBefore and after wearing contact lensF valueP valueBaseline1 day1 week1 month3month6monthOSDI8.4 ± 1.922.6 ± 4.424.3 ± 3.126.3 ± 3.924.6 ± 4.824.8 ± 3.56.118<0.001Schirmer I test (mm)15.4 ± 12.214.0 ± 10.512.4 ± 10.613.4 ± 10.116.0 ± 12.717.0 ± 11.91.364>0.05TBUT (s)5.3 ± 1.13.7 ± 0.53.8 ± 0.74.4 ± 1.34.0 ± 0.73.5 ± 0.50.848>0.05OSDI = ocular surface disease index; TBUT = tear break-up time. Values are mean ± SD.


## 3.4. Correlation of Dry Eye Indices and CL Fitting Characteristics

Changes in the temporal lag three months after wearing CLs were positively correlated with changes in TBUT (P < .05; Table5). Changes in the temporal lag 6 months after wearing CLs were negatively correlated with changes in OSDI (P < .05; Table 5). Changes in the blink-induced movement one week after wearing CLs were positively correlated with changes in OSDI, Schirmer I test scores, and TBUT (P < .05; Table 5). Changes in the blink-induced movement 6 months after wearing CLs were positively correlated with changes in OSDI and TBUT (P < .05; Table 5). There were no correlations between changes in conjunctival coverage and dry eye indices at any time points after wearing CLs, nor were there any correlations between changes in decentration and dry eye indices (Table 5).Table 5
The correlation of dry eye indices and CL fitting characteristics at different time points.
Temporal lag△1wConjunctival coverage△1wDecentration △1wBlink-induced movement△1wrprprprpOSDI△1w-0.4730.0880.1390.6360.1780.5430.6140.020∗Schirmer I test △1w-0.3060.288-0.1290.661-0.3880.1710.5700.033∗TBUT△1w-0.0730.805-0.3170.269-0.3740.1870.7300.003∗OSDI△1 m-0.4810.0820.4840.080.4230.1310.2330.422Schirmer I test △1 m-0.2020.4880.2580.3730.1310.6550.1670.569TBUT△1 m-0.3240.259-0.4100.146-0.1370.6420.1500.608OSDI△3 m-0.4070.1480.1400.6330.4610.0970.1190.686Schirmer I test △3 m-0.3450.2280.0870.768-0.0510.861-0.1700.560TBUT△3 m0.5440.044∗-0.2590.3720.1640.575-0.0270.928OSDI△6 m-0.6290.016∗0.1300.6580.4500.1060.5770.031∗Schirmer I test △6 m-0.1720.555-0.1340.648-0.0330.9110.0610.836TBUT△6 m-0.2460.3960.2070.4780.1770.5460.5330.050∗OSDI = ocular surface disease index; TBUT = tear break-up time. △value of dry eye indices: the difference between baseline and each time point. △value of CL fitting characteristics: the difference between 1 day and each time point. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was used to analyze the associations between variables.∗: P <0.05.


## 4. Discussion

Poor-fitting SCLs are commonly associated with discomfort and dry eye and have a negative impact on ocular physiology. Therefore, assessment of contact lens fit is crucial to clinical practice. Unlike gas-permeable lenses, SCLs cannot be evaluated by determining the pattern of fluorescein staining under the lens because of permanent staining of the lens surface. Thus, the development of comprehensive and objective lens fit assessment methods may contribute to better understanding of the fitting characteristics. The validity and repeatability of blink-induced movement and decentration assessed by using a DSLB has been confirmed [7]. Studies have shown that UHR-OCT is feasible to evaluate horizontal excursion lag [15], and conjunctival coverage can be used to characterize SCL edge fitting [10]. However, the relationship between SCL fit characteristics and dry eye indices and changes in these parameters over time after wearing SCLs have not been confirmed.In the present study, we quantified conjunctival coverage and combined edge-fitting and overall fit characteristics to adequately describe SCL fit. The temporal lag, decentration, and blink-induced movement were within the ranges reported by others [7, 15]. The inter- and intra-researcher repeatability of measurements of the four main lens fit variables was good at different follow-up times. The four fit characteristics did not change significantly with the CL wearing time, which indicated that both the CL and the shape of the ocular surface had relatively stabilized within 6 months. However, it is generally believed that the lens needs time to adapt and it would dehydrate after being worn for a relatively long time. Hence, the inconsistent shooting time of each follow-up might have some impact on the results of fit characteristics, which needs to be improved in follow-up experiments.OSDI changed obviously after wearing SCLs and remained steady over 6 months. This result suggested that wearing SCLs would lead to some discomfort in comparison with non-wearing. Objective dry eye indices, which included Schirmer I test scores and TBUT, remained relatively stable during the follow-up period, suggesting that the ocular surface condition of subjects had not changed significantly within 6 months of wearing SCLs.We considered that a higher level of conjunctival coverage around the lens edge might reduce tear exchange beneath the lens. In this scenario, a subject with greater conjunctival coverage might have more serious dry eye symptoms. However, the results of our study did not find any correlations between conjunctival coverage and dry eye indices. Turhan [14] demonstrated that lens power might have no significant influence on the conjunctival indentation exerted by the lens edge. Therefore, differences in diopter values of SCLs might not affect conjunctival coverage. Sorbara et al. [20] found an optical displacement artefact when imaging a contact lens on two rigid continuous surfaces with UHR-OCT. They concluded that the displacement at the intersection of the CL edge and the conjunctiva was likely a manifestation of both the artefact and compression of the conjunctiva. Therefore, conjunctival coverage might cannot adequately represent SCL fit characteristics, which might explain the absence of significant correlations between conjunctival coverage and dry eye indices.In contrast to our presumption that more decentration with a looser lens fit would cause less discomfort, lens centration had no significant impact on the dry eye symptoms induced by SCLs. Lens centration might be affected by lid tension and lens gravity since most of the lenses in this study were centered slightly inferior relative to the limbus. Wolffsohn et al. [12] demonstrated that horizontal lag was more predictive of overall lens movement than vertical lag. Cui et al. [15] reported that temporal and nasal lags were similar to and correlated with each other. Hence, we only assessed the temporal lag in the present study. We found that the temporal lag was positively correlated with TBUT and negatively correlated with OSDI. This finding was in agreement with our assumption that a smaller temporal lag indicated a tighter CL.In our study, blink-induced movement was positively correlated with changes in OSDI, Schirmer I test scores, and TBUT. Sufficient movement of the CL during blinking may facilitate the exchange of the tears under and around the lens and the removal of debris [4, 8]. As a consequence, objective dry eye assessment indices were positively associated with blink-induced movement of SCLs. However, excessive lens movement is also likely to increase the friction between the contact lens front surface and eyelid, giving rise to a certain degree of subjective discomfort [21]. Confirmation of these hypotheses needs to be elucidated in further studies.There were some limitations in the present study. A larger sample size and longer follow-up period will be needed to verify the accuracy of the results obtained in our study. However, even with the small sample size, significant correlations between ocular comfort and lens fit interactions were evident. The software for determining the values of fit indices was semi-automated. More precise and convenient measurements and devices may further enhance the method for routine clinical application. The detailed quantitative relationships between dry eye indices and CL fit characteristics should be fully investigated in further studies, which can provide guidance for clinical practitioners.In summary, this was the first study to demonstrate the correlations between fit properties and dry eye indices and changes in these parameters over time within 6 months after wearing SCLs. Our results suggest that UHR-OCT and DSLB can be combined to quantitatively evaluate SCL fit characteristics. The semi-automated image analysis method allows an accurate, reliable, and repeatable assessment of SCL fit characteristics, serving as a useful tool for research and optimization of lens fit in clinical practice. Both the CL and ocular surface conditions are almost stabilized after SCL wear for a relatively long time. Temporal lag and blink-induced movement shows better correlation with dry eye symptoms than conjunctival coverage and decentration.



---

*Source: 7220706-2022-03-18.xml*