4.3 Article

First Experience With the ICD 16.5 Mini-Scleral Lens for Optic and Therapeutic Purposes

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000293

Keywords

Keratoconus; Ocular surface disease; Scleral contact lens; Gas permeable contact lens

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To evaluate the success rate, efficacy, and safety of the ICD 16.5 mini-scleral gas permeable (GP) contact lens. Methods: This prospective study included referred consecutive patients with irregular corneas and severe ocular surface disease (OSD) in treatment failure. All patients were fitted with the ICD 16.5 mini-scleral GP lens. Even though we had some limited experience with scleral lenses, it was our first experience with the ICD 16.5 mini-scleral GP lens. Efficacy was assessed by comparing best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) with the miniscleral lens to baseline BCVA. A subjective visual functioning questionnaire (comfort score, visual quality score, handling rating, and wearing time) was administered in a face-to-face structured interview. Results: Thirty-nine eyes of 23 patients with a mean age of 43 +/- 16 years were included. Fitting indications were keratoconus (46%), post-penetrating keratoplasty (21%), other irregular astigmatism (15%), and severe OSD (18%). Twenty-five eyes (64%) were successfully fitted with an 18-month follow-up. The mini-scleral GP lens BCVA was 0.16 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR; 20/25) versus a baseline BCVA of 0.44 logMAR (20/63; P<0.001). Comfort and visual quality scores were 8.5/10 and 7.5/10, respectively. No complications were detected in 96% of the eyes (95% confidence interval, 76.1%-99.4%). One eye experienced corneal graft swelling. Conclusions: The present findings suggest that the ICD 16.5 mini-scleral GP lens is an effective and safe alternative for managing challenging corneas in a therapeutic impasse.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available