4.3 Article

The Effect of Silicone Hydrogel Bandage Soft Contact Lens Base Curvature on Comfort and Outcomes After Photorefractive Keratectomy

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000067

Keywords

Silicone hydrogel; Base curvature; Photorefractive keratectomy; Pain; Contact lens loss

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate the relative pain and the relative amount of contact lens loss experienced using two different base curvatures (BCs) of the Acuvue Oasys bandage soft contact lens (BSCL) after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Methods: One hundred forty patients undergoing PRK on either the Allegretto or the VISX laser at the Joint Warfighter Refractive Surgery Center in Lackland AFB, TX, were randomized to one of the two different BCs of the Acuvue Oasys BSCL: 8.4 or 8.8 mm. Patients were evaluated on postoperative days 1 and 4 during which they completed a survey rating absolute pain in each eye on a visual analog pain scale. Lens loss was recorded throughout the study. Results: Patients treated on the Allegretto laser preferred the 8.4-mm BC lens, whereas comfort after treatment on the VISX depended on corneal shape. For VISX, patients with very flat corneas (steep K <= 42 preoperative or <= 38 postoperatively) preferred an 8.8-mm BC lens while patients with very steep corneas (steep K >45 preoperative or >42 postoperative) preferred an 8.4-mm BC lens, though these results were largely not statistically significant. Patients who lost their lenses prematurely tended to be those whose corneal curvature did not match their contact lens BC. Conclusions: Individuals treated with the Allegretto laser or individuals with more prolate corneas should likely be fit with an 8.4-mm BC Acuvue Oasys BSCL while individuals with more oblate corneas should likely be fit with an 8.8-mm BC lens to minimize postoperative pain and premature BSCL loss.

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