Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2016 UpToDate®

Overview of contact lenses

Michael J Lipson, OD, FAAO
Section Editor
Jonathan Trobe, MD
Deputy Editor
Janet L Wilterdink, MD


An estimated 40.9 million people aged 18 and older in the United States (one in six adults) wear contact lenses, with 93 percent wearing soft lenses and the remainder rigid gas-permeable lenses [1].

The types of available contact lenses, indications for their use, and appropriate care to decrease the risk of infection or trauma will be reviewed here. The complications with contact lens use are discussed separately. (See "Complications of contact lenses".)


Contact lenses may be categorized by their compositional material, wearing schedule, disposal schedule, permeability, water content, and type of correction (figure 1 and figure 2). With many new lens types available, there are alternatives to help most patients achieve comfortable lens wear with clear vision. New types of contact lenses are continually being introduced with the intent to decrease risks of infection, inflammation, and conjunctival trauma while maximizing vision correction and convenience of use [2].

Hydrophilic/soft lenses — Soft lenses account for more than 90 percent of prescribed contact lenses in the United States and worldwide (figure 2 and figure 1) [3,4].

Soft lenses are used to correct a variety of refractive errors, including myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism (toric lenses), and presbyopia (multifocal lenses). Not every prescription is available in every material or brand. Certain refractive errors, caused by keratoconus or other corneal distortions, may not be correctable with soft lenses.


Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Sep 2016. | This topic last updated: Oct 4, 2016.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2016 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Cope JR, Collier SA, Rao MM, et al. Contact Lens Wearer Demographics and Risk Behaviors for Contact Lens-Related Eye Infections--United States, 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015; 64:865.
  2. Foulks GN. Prolonging contact lens wear and making contact lens wear safer. Am J Ophthalmol 2006; 141:369.
  3. Mack C. Contact Lenses 2007: A look back at contact lens events of 2007 including prescribing trends, product recalls and launches, compliance issue, mergers and corneal staining. Contact Lens Spectrum 2008. Available at: http://www.clspectrum.com/article.aspx?article=101240 (Accessed on November 01, 2011).
  4. Morgan PB, Woods CA, Knajian R, et al. International Contact Lens Prescribing in 2007: Our annual review of international prescribing trends reports on close to 20,000 prospectively conducted fits in 27 countries. Contact Lens Spectrum 2008. Available at: http://www.clspectrum.com/article.aspx?article=101241 (Accessed on November 01, 2011).
  5. Soft Contact Lenses: Hydrogel and Silicone Hydrogel Lens General Considerations. Contact Lens Spectrum 2008. Available at: http://www.clspectrum.com/article.aspx?article=&loc=archive\2008\july\supplements\cls_class\cls_july_class_suppl_a02.html (Accessed on November 01, 2011).
  6. Nichols J. Contact Lenses 2008. Contact Lens Spectrum 2009; 1:24. Available at: http://www.clspectrum.com/article.aspx?article=102473 (Accessed on November 01, 2011).
  7. Stern J, Wong R, Naduvilath TJ, et al. Comparison of the performance of 6- or 30-night extended wear schedules with silicone hydrogel lenses over 3 years. Optom Vis Sci 2004; 81:398.
  8. Dart JK, Radford CF, Minassian D, et al. Risk factors for microbial keratitis with contemporary contact lenses: a case-control study. Ophthalmology 2008; 115:1647.
  9. Radford CF, Minassian D, Dart JK, et al. Risk factors for nonulcerative contact lens complications in an ophthalmic accident and emergency department: a case-control study. Ophthalmology 2009; 116:385.
  10. Jupiter DG, Katz HR. Management of irregular astigmatism with rigid gas permeable contact lenses. CLAO J 2000; 26:14.
  11. Swarbrick HA, Wong G, O'Leary DJ. Corneal response to orthokeratology. Optom Vis Sci 1998; 75:791.
  12. Lipson MJ, Sugar A, Musch DC. Overnight corneal reshaping versus soft disposable contact lenses: vision-related quality-of-life differences from a randomized clinical trial. Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82:886.
  13. van der Worp E, Bornman D, Ferreira DL, et al. Modern scleral contact lenses: A review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2014; 37:240.
  14. Lipson MJ, Musch DC. Synergeyes versus soft toric lenses: vision-related quality of life. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84:593.
  15. Nau AC. A comparison of synergeyes versus traditional rigid gas permeable lens designs for patients with irregular corneas. Eye Contact Lens 2008; 34:198.
  16. Peng CC, Chauhan A. Extended cyclosporine delivery by silicone-hydrogel contact lenses. J Control Release 2011; 154:267.
  17. Ciolino JB, Hoare TR, Iwata NG, et al. A drug-eluting contact lens. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009; 50:3346.
  18. Rah MJ, Bailey MD, Hayes J, et al. Comparison of NEI RQL-42 Scores in LASIK vs. CRT Patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45:E.
  19. Walline JJ, Jones LA, Sinnott LT. Corneal reshaping and myopia progression. Br J Ophthalmol 2009; 93:1181.
  20. Walline JJ, Rah MJ, Jones LA. The Children's Overnight Orthokeratology Investigation (COOKI) pilot study. Optom Vis Sci 2004; 81:407.
  21. Walline JJ, Gaume A, Jones LA, et al. Benefits of contact lens wear for children and teens. Eye Contact Lens 2007; 33:317.
  22. Kakita T, Hiraoka T, Oshika T. Influence of overnight orthokeratology on axial elongation in childhood myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52:2170.
  23. Smith EL 3rd. Prentice Award Lecture 2010: A case for peripheral optical treatment strategies for myopia. Optom Vis Sci 2011; 88:1029.
  24. Walline JJ, Lindsley K, Vedula SS, et al. Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; :CD004916.
  25. Cho P, Cheung SW, Edwards M. The longitudinal orthokeratology research in children (LORIC) in Hong Kong: a pilot study on refractive changes and myopic control. Curr Eye Res 2005; 30:71.
  26. Kang P, Swarbrick H. Peripheral refraction in myopic children wearing orthokeratology and gas-permeable lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2011; 88:476.
  27. Si JK, Tang K, Bi HS, et al. Orthokeratology for myopia control: a meta-analysis. Optom Vis Sci 2015; 92:252.
  28. Santodomingo-Rubido J, Villa-Collar C, Gilmartin B, Gutiérrez-Ortega R. Factors preventing myopia progression with orthokeratology correction. Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90:1225.
  29. Soni PS, Nguyen TT, Bonanno JA. Overnight orthokeratology: refractive and corneal recovery after discontinuation of reverse-geometry lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2004; 30:254.
  30. Kobayashi Y, Yanai R, Chikamoto N, et al. Reversibility of effects of orthokeratology on visual acuity, refractive error, corneal topography, and contrast sensitivity. Eye Contact Lens 2008; 34:224.
  31. Barr JT, Rah MJ, Meyers W, Legerton J. Recovery of refractive error after corneal refractive therapy. Eye Contact Lens 2004; 30:247.
  32. Bullimore MA, Sinnott LT, Jones-Jordan LA. The risk of microbial keratitis with overnight corneal reshaping lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90:937.
  33. Lipson MJ. Long-term clinical outcomes for overnight corneal reshaping in children and adults. Eye Contact Lens 2008; 34:94.
  34. Lipson MJ, Sugar A. Corneal reshaping: is it a good alternative to refractive surgery? Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2006; 17:394.
  35. Guillon M, Maissa C, Cooper P, et al. Visual performance of a multi-zone bifocal and a progressive multifocal contact lens. CLAO J 2002; 28:88.
  36. Pujol J, Gispets J, Arjona M. Optical performance in eyes wearing two multifocal contact lens designs. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2003; 23:347.
  37. Hiratani H, Alvarez-Lorenzo C. The nature of backbone monomers determines the performance of imprinted soft contact lenses as timolol drug delivery systems. Biomaterials 2004; 25:1105.
  38. Gulsen D, Chauhan A. Ophthalmic drug delivery through contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45:2342.
  39. Valint PL, et al. Plasma Surface Treatment of Slicone Hydrogel Contact Lenses with a Flexible Carbon Coating. US Patent # 6,213,604 B1 April 10, 2001.
  40. Carney, et al Medical Devices Having Antimicrobial coatings. Theron US Patent application # 10/722,256 July 15, 2004.
  41. Lemp MA. Contact lenses and allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2008; 8:457.
  42. Patel A, Hammersmith K. Contact lens-related microbial keratitis: recent outbreaks. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2008; 19:302.
  43. FDA Website. Available at: www.fda.gov/cdrh/contactlenses/lenslist.html (Accessed on November 01, 2011).
  44. Koffler BH, Karpecki PM. Positive aspects of the use of multipurpose disinfection solutions. Arch Ophthalmol 2009; 127:1540.
  45. Cohen EJ. Contact lens solutions: part of the problem. Arch Ophthalmol 2009; 127:1544.