Abstract：Objective To estimate the incidence of corneal infiltrates among chronic wearers of silicone hydrogel soft contact lens and hydrophilic soft contact lens and to evaluate the biocompatibility from a clinical perspective.Methods A systematic search was conducted using such online databases as Pub Med and CNKI. After literature selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment, a meta-analysis was performed using the Stata 12.0 software.Results Finally four prospective comparative studies were included. Wearers who used silicone hydrogel soft contact lens were 77 percent less vulnerable to corneal infiltrates than those who used hydrophilic contact lens (OR=0.23, 95% CI=0.23-0.36). The incidence of corneal stromal infiltration among users of silicone hydrogel soft contact lens was 0.3%, compared with 1.4% among users of hydrophilic soft contact lens.Conclusions Chronic wearers of silicone hydrogel soft contact lens are at lower risk of corneal infiltrates than users of hydrophilic soft contact lens, but it is important for ophthalmologists to instruct patients to use soft contact lens properly and care about the follow-up of patients.
李洁,卢红,邢丽娜. 两种接触镜导致角膜基质浸润发生率的Meta分析[J]. 武警医学, 2017, 28(10): 1012-1015.
LI Jie, LU Hong, XING lina.. Meta-analysis of corneal infiltrates due to chronic use of silicone hydrogel contact lens and hydrogel contact lens. Med. J. Chin. Peop. Armed Poli. Forc., 2017, 28(10): 1012-1015.
López-de la Rosa A, Martín-Monta?ez V, López-Miguel A, et al. Ocular response to environmental variations in contactlens wearers [J].Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2017, 37(1): 60-70.
[2]
Moezzi AM, Fonn D, Varikooty J,et al. Overnight corneal swelling with high and low powered silicone hydrogel lenses[J]. J Optom, 2015, 8(1):19-26.
[3]
Zhang X, Marchetti C, Lee J, et al. The impact of lens care solutions on corneal epithelial changes during daily silicone hydrogel contact lens wear as measured by in vivo confocal microscopy[J]. Cont Lens Anterior Eye, 2017, 40(1): 33-41.
Brennan NA, Coles MLC, Comstock TL, et al. A 1-year prospective clinical trial of balafilcon a (PureVision) silicone-hydrogel contact lenses used on a 30-day continuous wear schedule[J]. Ophthalmology,2002, 109(6):1172-1177.
[6]
Stern J, Wong R, Naduvilath TJ, et al. Comparison of the performance of 6- or 30-night[J].Clin Exp Optom,2016,99(2):115-119.
[7]
extended wear schedules with silicone hydrogel lenses over 3 years[J]. Optom Vis Sci, 2004, 81(6):398-406.
[8]
MorganPB, EfronN, Hill EA, et al.Incidence of keratitis of varying severity among contact lens wearers[J].Br J Ophthalmol, 2005, 89(4):430-436.
[9]
Schein OD, McNally JJ, Katz J, et al. The incidence of microbial keratitis among wearers of a 30-day silicone hydrogel extended-wear contact lens[J].Ophthalmology, 2005, 112(12):2172-2179.
[10]
Becmeur PH, Abry F, Bourcier T, et al. Risk factors for contact lens-related microbial keratitis: a multicenter case-control study[J].J Fr Ophtalmol,2017, 40(3):224-231.
[11]
Lim CH, Carnt NA, Farook M, et al.Risk factors for contact lens-related microbial keratitis in Singapore[J]. Eye (Lond), 2016, 30(3):447-455.
[12]
Barrett A, Gnehm D, Jones J. α1-antitrypsin and C-reactive protein levels in tear fluid after continuous contact lens wear[J]. Clin Exp Optom, 2014, 97(1):66-71.
[13]
Inamoto Y, Sun YC, Flowers ME.Bandage soft contact lenses for ocular graft-versus-host disease[J]. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant, 2015, 21(11):2002-2007.
Cheung SW, Cho P, Chan B. A comparativestudy ofbiweeklydisposablecontactlenses: siliconehydrogelversushydrogel[J]. Clin Exp Optom, 2007, 90(2):124-131.
2017, Vol. 28 
