• About Us
  • Privacy
  • Contact Us

Contact Lens Update

Clinical Insights Based in Current Research

Search Our Site

  • Home
  • Browse Past Issues
  • Resource Library
  • Back to Basics
  • Useful Links
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Conference Highlights

Where’s the blink? The evolution of a more realistic in vitro eye model

January 31st, 2017
Hendrik Walther headshotChau Minh Phan headshotHendrik Walther is a graduate student at the Centre for Contact Lens Research, School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Waterloo. Chau-Minh Phan is a former CCLR graduate student, currently working at Triclops Technology.

It can be a challenge to test contact lens performance in the early stages of development. Although the human eye would be the ideal testing environment, it is unfortunately not always practical or cost-effective, so we rely on in vitro research to understand how a lens responds to varying ocular conditions such as tear fluid composition, ocular surface temperature and blinking, extrapolating the results to predict in vivo lens performance.

Conventional in vivo methods, however, are limited by conditions that truly mimic the human eye. While simply submerging a lens in a vial of saline solution or artificial tears can provide some information to help us understand the “hows” and “whys” of lens performance, there are a number of ways that this static fluid model does not truly reflect the ocular environment:

  1. Submerging a contact lens requires 2-5 mL of liquid, significantly more fluid than would come into contact with a contact lens on eye (typically about 7.0 μL at any given time).
  2. The ocular surface is not a static environment: constant tear flow and tear replenishment over time is missing from the simple vial model.
  3. Any effects of the mechanical blink (e.g. the eyelid rubbing against the contact lens) are missing from the static vial model.
  4. On eye, a contact lens undergoes intermittent air exposure between blinks.

 

CCLR graduate students, Chau-Minh Phan and Hendrik Walther, were unsatisfied with these limitations. While they were certainly not the first to try to come up with a better in vitro testing system, their tenacious approach in developing various iterations of the OcuFlow® has produced a remarkable device that manages to include all the pieces missing from the conventional in vitro testing model. These include an adjustable range of motion representative of the natural blink, adjustable fluid volume and flow and intermittent air exposure. Test solutions housed in separate chambers can be released separately and collected for in vitro analysis.

Walther presented the evolution of this device at the 2016 meeting of the American Academy of Optometry. Here’s what it looks like:

www.ocuflow.ca

Related Articles

  • January 31, 2017

    Contact Lens Material Properties

  • January 31, 2017

    A review of contact angle techniques

  • January 31, 2017

    Where’s the blink? The evolution of a more realistic in vitro eye model

  • January 31, 2017

    Research Brief: Clinical significance of contact lens materials development

Issues

  • Multifocal Contact Lenses
  • Artificial Tears: An Update
  • Myopia: New Evidence and Best Practices
  • Neuropathic Pain
  • Specialty Rigid Lenses
  • Contact lens compliance
  • Pandemic update
  • Digital Devices and Dry Eye: A Growing Issue
  • The long and short of axial length
  • Using BCLA CLEAR with your patients
  • Helping your patients through allergy season
  • Getting the measure of meibomian glands
  • 2020: An extraordinary year
  • Scleral lens update
  • A dose of myopia
  • New news since TFOS DEWS II
  • COVID-19 Special Edition
  • Material considerations
  • Putting dry eye theory into practice
  • Getting started with Ortho-K
  • Infiltrates – an update
  • Staining
  • Myopia matters: Summarising the IMI reports
  • Lids and contact lenses
  • Myths
  • Revisiting patient compliance
  • Contact Lenses & Kids
  • Interprofessional Collaboration
  • Digital eye strain
  • New Dry Eye Technology
  • Update on Presbyopia
  • Taking stock of dry eye disease: DEWS II
  • Scleral Lenses
  • Pain and Sensation
  • Lab measurements in clinical practice
  • Control of pediatric myopia
  • Nutrition
  • Rethinking contact lens deposits
  • Extended wear
  • Daily Disposables
  • Eyelash Mites (Demodex)
  • Outsmarting bacteria with new technology
  • Youth and contact lenses
  • Sports Vision
  • Ocular effects of UV radiation from the sun
  • Eyelid Conditions
  • Makeup: Impact on ocular health
  • Myopia Control – Update 2014
  • The Growing Prevalence of Myopia
  • Cosmetic contact lenses
  • Contact lens discomfort – The essentials
  • Technology and contact lens research
  • It's A Question of Comfort
  • Contact lens materials
  • Let's talk about SICS
  • Conjunctival Controversies
  • Kids & Contact Lenses
  • One-day silicone hydrogel lenses
  • Solutions
  • Spotlight on Scleral lenses
  • Drug delivery via contact lenses
  • Ocular allergies
  • Reducing lens case contamination
  • Dry eye and meibomium gland dysfunction
  • Myopia Control
  • Presbyopia
  • Compliance and non-compliance
  • Lens care
  • Celebrating 50 years of contact lenses

Looking for another article?

Alcon coopervision Johnson&Johnson Vision Care

Newsletter Sign-Up

Sign-up for and start receiving our newsletter.

Site Map

  • Home
  • Browse Past Issues
    • Editorial
    • Feature Article
    • Clinical Insight
    • Conference Highlights
  • Resource Library
  • Back to Basics
  • Useful Links
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
© 2023 Contact Lens Update