4.3 Article

Management of Vascularized Limbal Keratitis With Prosthetic Replacement of the Ocular Surface System

Journal

EYE & CONTACT LENS-SCIENCE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 38, Issue 2, Pages 137-140

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e31823bafbc

Keywords

Prosthetic replacement of the ocular surface ecosystem; PROSE; Vascularized limbal keratitis; Neovascularization; Keratoconus; Surface ocular disease; Corneal scar

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To describe a case of contact lens-induced vascularized limbal keratitis (VLK) and management with prosthetic replacement of the ocular surface system (PROSE) treatment. Methods: Clinical retrospective case report describing the clinical appearance, course of development, and treatment of VLK with PROSE. Results: A 58-year-old white woman presented with a history of advanced keratoconus and almost four decades of contact lens wear, including polymethyl-methacrylate, small-diameter, gas-permeable lenses, low-Dk hybrid, and piggyback lens modalities. Complications of lens wear caused the development of extensive VLK in both eyes, with vascularization, lipid keratopathy, and corneal scarring projecting into the central cornea, more so in the left eye. She was evaluated and treated with PROSE in both eyes, demonstrating initial improvements in both comfort and vision, from 20/30 to 20/25 in the right eye and from 20/40 to 20/20 in the left eye. After 2 years of PROSE treatment, she reported excellent vision and comfort. Acuities were OD 20/25(+2) and OS 20/202(-/+). There was normalization of the corneal surface with reduced staining and epithelial irregularity, and there was substantial regression of corneal neovascularization and opacity, particularly in the left eye. Conclusions: PROSE, by normalizing the environment at the ocular surface, ultimately improved visual function and long-term ocular health for this patient.

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