4.5 Article

Soft contact lens fitting after intrastromal corneal ring segment implantation to treat keratoconus

Journal

CONTACT LENS & ANTERIOR EYE
Volume 37, Issue 5, Pages 377-381

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2014.06.001

Keywords

Keratoconus; Intrastromal rings; Soft toric contact lens; Piggy back

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To assess the feasibility of fitting a lathed soft toric contact lens (STCL) after the implant of intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRSs) to treat keratoconus. Methods: Six months after ICRS implantation, 47 eyes of 47 patients (18-45 years) were fitted with a STCL. In each eye, we determined refractive error, uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and keratometry and asphericity measures. The outcome of STCL fitting was defined according to CDVA as successful (<= 0.2 logMAR) or unsuccessful (>0.2 logMAR). Patients in the unsuccessful group were refitted with a piggy-back (PB) system. The above variables and the change in CDVA observed after STCL and PB lens fitting from spectacle CDVA were compared in the two groups. Results: STCL fitting was successful in 75%, 66.66% and 0% of the ICRS implanted eyes with stages I-III keratoconus, respectively. Spectacle-CDVA was 1.5 lines better and mean corneal power was 3.62D lower in the successful STCL group. In this group, the difference in cylinder axis between spectacles and STCL was 24.25 degrees lower. PB refitting achieved a PB-CDVA <= 0.2 logMAR in all cases. A similar difference in the CDVA change achieved by contact lenses versus spectacles was observed in the successful STCL and PB refitted groups. Conclusion: STCL fitting is a feasible option in a large proportion of patients implanted with ICRS. When these lenses are unsatisfactory, a PB system is a good alternative. (C) 2014 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available