| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| [ Top of Page ] [ Home ] [ Contact Us ] [ Help ] [ The National Academies Home ] | ||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 36
s
Recommendations
The working group has formulated a set of 13 recommendations for
appropriate contact lens use in military aviation. These recommendations
have been formulated to minimize risks associated with contact lens use
while exploiting their military benefits. The recommendations fall into five
groups: restrictions on contact lens use; spectacle use as backup for contact
lens use; lens fitting by qualified specialists; regular follow-up care; and
optimal lens type.
RESTRICTIONS ON CONTACT LENS USE
1. To minimize the risk of complications, contact lens use should be held
to a minimum but, when necessary, should be restricted to immediate mission
wear; contact lenses should be regarded as combat gear; not cosmetic gear.
The ocular health of military air personnel represents an essential
resource that must be protected from unnecessary harm. Practices that
represent known risks to this resource such as the wearing of contact
lenses in stressful environments should be avoided unless these practices
are essential to discharging the aviator's military role. This means mini-
mizing contact lens wear as much as possible and not allowing them for
everyday cosmetic use. In other words, contact lenses should be treated as
a piece of military equipment issued for a specified use, not as personal
equipment to be worn at the aviator's discretion.
This recommendation is aimed not only at protecting aviators' prime
asset their sight—but at preserving their ability to use contact lenses as
necessary combat gear in the future. In our experience, the length of time
an individual can be expected to enjoy problem-free contact lens use in a
36
OCR for page 37
RECOMMENDATIONS
37
lifetime is not unlimited. For most people, it will total a number of years,
after which the risk of discomfort and more serious complications increases.
The ability to tolerate contact lenses can perhaps be regarded as a
nonrenewable resource—once it is used up, it is gone. If it is used for
nonmilitary purposes such as cosmetic wear, less will remain for legitimate
military uses later on. Ideally, the ability to wear contact lenses to accom-
plish military objectives should span the aviator's entire career, which can
be 20 years or longer. Therefore, judicious use of this resource is essential.
2. Contact lenses should be worn in a flexible e~ctended-wear mode
that allows emended wear of lenses as necessary but mandates spectacle use
whenever possible to allow the eye to recover:
It is clear that the terms dad) wear and extended wear lose their
relevance for military aviation settings. The working group advocates a
policy of reducing wear time to the minimum required to accomplish a
given mission. This will mean extended wear in many cases and shorter-
term wear in other cases. It does not imply using extended-wear lenses in
an extended-wear mode all the time, even though this may be the accepted
practice in a civilian setting. The term peucible eucten~led wear describes this
policy of accommodating the needs of the mission with minimum wear
time.
The practice of flexible emended wear should not be allowed to de-
generate into continuous extended wear without relief. There should be
an attempt to maintain some minimum balance between time in lenses
and time out of lenses. For example, if three weeks of extended wear are
required during a mission, then perhaps three weeks out of lenses should
be required later to compensate. Under optimal conditions, much more
time will be spent without contact lenses Man with them. The attempt
here is both to avoid the greater incidence of acute, mission-threatening
effects associated with extended wear of lenses, as well as to manage the
longer-term toll of lens wear in general.
SPECTACLE USE AS BACKUP FOR CONTACT LENS USE
3. The use of spectacles should be mandated for standard wear; that is,
for all activities except authorued aviation missions.
This is simply the corollary to recommendation 1, and it is only slightly
more restrictive than current military policies governing use of contact
lenses and spectacles. Spectacles have a proven record of safety and
successful use in a variety of tasks. More importantly, they offer equal or
superior visual acuity compared with contact lenses with less risk to the eye
OCR for page 38
38
CONTACT LENS USE UNDER ADVERSE CON Z)mONS
and are therefore the favored prosthesis when contact lenses do not offer
a specific advantage.
4. Spectacles should be required as a backup for ad contact lens-wearing
aviators and should be kept on their persons during missions, except when
equipment incompatibilities preclude their use.
Spectacles should be available as a backup to contact lenses in case lens
wear must be terminated mid-mission due to lens loss, discomfort, irritation,
foreign body involvement, or other complications. This is standard practice
in the Air Force and should be adopted by all the services.
5. Spectacle acuity should be checked when contact lenses are fitted and
occasional) thereafter so that contact lenses and spectacles match.
Checking spectacle acuity against contact lens acuity will ensure that
aviators can easily move from using one to using the other without untoward
visual effects.
LENS FITTING BY QUALIFIED SPECIALISTS
6. The determination of who should wear contact lenses should be made
by qualified ophthalmic specialists.
7. The fitting of contact lenses should be performed on) by qualified
specialists tie., optometrists or-ophthalmologists).
The fit of a contact lens can make the lens comfortable or unbearable,
prone to complications or relatively benign. Lens fitting is an exacting
skill. Without a professional determination of who should wear contact
lenses, followed by a professional fitting, the chances of complications or
less-than-perfect vision resulting from the lenses are greatly increased.
REGULAR FOLLOW-UP CARE BY QUALIFIED SPECIALISTS
8. After initial fitting, follow-up exams should be conducted quarter) or
as shorts,' thereafter as possible. Without at least an annual exam, the contact
lens wearer should be grounded.
9. Follow-up should be conducted by qualified ophthalmic personnel
only.
10. Follow-up exams must be fully documented, including lens choice,
complications, and reasons for discontinuing contact lens use, and the data
collected at a central location.
Competent follow-up care is as essential to the success of contact lens
wear and the avoidance of complications as is proper fit, especially in the
OCR for page 39
RECOMMENDATIONS
39
frequent and regular basis if possible complications are to be detected
before they become debilitating. Penalties should apply to those unable to
meet the necessary care schedule.
Information gathered from these exams should form part of a centrally
located data base that can be used to assess the performance of various lens
models or lens care schemes, as well as to critically evaluate the contact lens
program in terms of actual complication rates experienced in the various
aviation settings.
OPIIMAL LENS lYPE
11. Unless medical indicated, rigid lenses (both PMMA and REP
lensesJ should not be used in any of the aviation environments considered due
to their sensitivity to particulate contamination.
While it may be true that military aviators have successfully employed
PMMA and RGP lenses in many cases, we have concluded that, over the
longer term, the use of these lenses in high-particulate environments such
as aircraft cabins poses a higher risk than the use of hydrogel lenses. ~
12. Hydrogel lenses of as low a water content as feasible (60 percent or
less) should be worn in F-A-R and helicopter units.
Hydrogel lenses of as low a water content as possible offer the least
risk in terms of particulate sensitivity, while minimizing the desiccating
effects of low humidity. In a low water content lens, the lens reaches a
steady state more quickly, water loss slows, and the properties of the lens
stabilize. Hydrogel lenses are also most amenable to the concept of flexible
wear, because, with proper fitting, intermittent wear is possible without
adaptation problems.
It should be noted that the working group views the prognosis for the
benign use of contact lenses in helicopter units as poor. Unsanitary field
conditions, possible lens wear beyond safe limits, and a high particulate
level will probably lead to high dropout rates and disability for more than
a few aviators. However, given the stated need for contact lenses on these
missions, extended wear hydrogel lenses are certainly the most appropriate
choice.
13. Contact lenses should not be used aboard T-T-B airport because
they offer no clear advantage over spectacles in this environment, except in
certain special cases (e.g. operator of filet loading boom).
The working group sees no overriding advantage to using contact
lenses in anything other than high-performance aircraft and helicopters,
except in special cases. This is not to say that contact lenses cannot be used
OCR for page 40
40
CONTACT ~ INS USE UNDER ADVERSE CONDITIONS
successfully in the T-T-B environment if a definite advantage to their use
emerges in the future. Contact lens use should be disallowed, however, in
all but essential situations.
CONCLUSION
As a final comment, the working group notes with dismay that aircraft
systems are not generally designed with ophthalmic considerations in mind.
This is true for everything from heating and air conditioning systems to
chemical protective hoods to sophisticated optical steering and targeting
devices. Retrofitting to accommodate the belated input of the ophthalmic
community seems to be common, but it is rarely satisfactory. The result
is a foreclosing of options, as in the Army's chemical protective hood, for
which spectacle use is impossible and contact lenses are the only remaining
possibility for those needing vision correction.
With the level of refractive errors common today among military
aviators, this approach is clearly counterproductive. Consultation with the
military ophthalmic community in the early phases of hardware design
could reduce incompatibility with ophthalmic needs and increase the range
of options available to cope with vision defects. Although such an approach
might well reduce the military advantages of contact lenses in aviation by
reducing spectacle-incompatible designs, it might also reduce the risks
currently associated with aviation use of contact lenses.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
contact lens