4.5 Article

The official guide to scleral lens terminology

期刊

CONTACT LENS & ANTERIOR EYE
卷 43, 期 6, 页码 529-534

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2019.09.006

关键词

Scleral lenses; Terminology; Lens design; Lens manufacturing; Sagittal heigth

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: In absence of scleral lens standards, this article aims to provide an official definition of terms related to scleral lens fitting and manufacturing, in order to make more uniform the use of appropriate terms when describing, writing or lecturing about scelral lenses. Adoption of a common terminology may also favor more fruitful exchanges between eyecare practitioners and manufacturers. Methods: A committee of 12 advances scleral lens clinicians met and develop a list of terms related to scleral lens fit and manufacturing. Litterature review was made using PubMed database with the keywords scleral lenses and terminology. Other related publications such as textbooks were also considered valid references. Validation of the terms selected and their suggested definition was made by consultation of other experts in the field, over 2 years. A final version was adopted by the Scleral Lens Education Society late in 2018. Results: This article contains three main sections. Section I provides the definition of a scleral lens. Section II addresses the general terminology habitually applied to contact lens field but in the context of scleral lens usage. Finally, Section III suggests a decription of terms specifically used when fitting or manufacturing scleral lenses. At the end, recommendations are made to manufacturers about the essential elements to provide to eyecare practitioners in order to help them understanding the lens design and to customize their fit. Conclusion: A common language is key to advancing the science and clinical practice of scleral lens fitting. The current terminology will help standardize this field, helping eyecare practitioners, educators, speakers and manufacturers to talk with the same language.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据