Face Masks and Vision Correction Study

In the recent Covid-19 pandemic, face masks were thought to be effective because they reduce viral transmission. Their usage was made compulsory in control of the pandemic.

Face masks have been associated with a range of deleterious consequences such as dry eye, spectacle lens fogging, itchiness, skin allergies, breathing difficulties, disturbed peripheral vision, and headaches.

A randomized study by Carole Maldonado-Codina and team revealed that Contact Lenses (CL) are a better vision correction option than Spectacles (Sp) when used in conjunction with a face mask. A range of benefits to the CL/face mask combination for vision-related symptoms, breathing, and heat-related symptoms were observed.

The findings of the study are published in Contact Lens and Anterior Eye.

Study Objective

The objective of the study was to test the hypothesis that various subjective ocular and task-related parameters associated with wearing a face mask would be better in neophyte contact lens (CL) wear compared to habitual spectacle (Sp) wear.

Study Design

The study was a randomized study including 33 participants where 15 continued in Sp or wore somofilcon. 15 used a daily disposable CL. A surgical face mask (Type II R) was worn for at least one hour per day on four or more days per week. After two weeks, participants completed the Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction Questionnaire (QIRC), a two-part face mask usability questionnaire, and graded ocular-related symptoms using 0–100 visual analogue scales.

Results

• There was no difference between groups for overall QIRC score, but some individual question scores reflected better quality of life in the CL in outdoor activities and fitness (all p < 0.05).
• Differences in favor of the CL were seen for the following in the face mask usability questionnaire: 'breathing', 'heat', 'comfort on ears', 'overall comfort', 'walking', 'driving', 'reading', 'computer use', 'exercising', and 'socializing' (all p < 0.05).
• Significant differences were also seen for the 0–100 VAS symptoms probing vision quality in favor of the CL: glare, distance and near vision, fogging, restricted field of view, and peripheral blur.

Conclusion

Codina and team concluded that their work supported anecdotal reports that CL are a better vision correction option than Sp when used in conjunction with a face mask. All of the benefits relating to the CL were likely to result in improved adherence to face mask use. Overall, the findings of this work suggest that where possible, CL should be the preferred vision correction option for people using face masks.

Reference

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2021.101516