4.5 Article

CLEAR-Scleral lenses

期刊

CONTACT LENS & ANTERIOR EYE
卷 44, 期 2, 页码 270-288

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2021.02.001

关键词

Scleral lens; Keratoconus; Sagittal depth; Ocular surface disease; Ocular surface shape; Contact lens evidence-based academic reports (CLEAR)

资金

  1. Alcon
  2. CooperVision

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The report provides a historical review and detailed account of the contemporary use of scleral lenses, highlighting them as the optimal choice for contact lens wear across various clinical indications and potentially delaying the need for corneal surgery. It also discusses the challenges and future applications associated with modern scleral lens fitting and evaluation processes.
Scleral lenses were the first type of contact lens, developed in the late nineteenth century to restore vision and protect the ocular surface. With the advent of rigid corneal lenses in the middle of the twentieth century and soft lenses in the 1970?s, the use of scleral lenses diminished; in recent times there has been a resurgence in their use driven by advances in manufacturing and ocular imaging technology. Scleral lenses are often the only viable form of contact lens wear across a range of clinical indications and can potentially delay the need for corneal surgery. This report provides a brief historical review of scleral lenses and a detailed account of contemporary scleral lens practice including common indications and recommended terminology. Recent research on ocular surface shape is presented, in addition to a comprehensive account of modern scleral lens fitting and on-eye evaluation. A range of optical and physiological challenges associated with scleral lenses are presented, including options for the clinical management of a range of ocular conditions. Future applications which take advantage of the stability of scleral lenses are also discussed. In summary, this report presents evidence-based recommendations to optimise patient outcomes in modern scleral lens practice.

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