4.2 Article

Correction of hyperopia with astigmatism following radial keratotomy with daily disposable plus spherical contact lens: a case report

期刊

INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 2199-2204

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-017-0702-4

关键词

Radial keratotomy; Hyperopia; Astigmatism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTo report the refractive correction in a case of hyperopia and astigmatism following radial keratotomy.MethodsA case report.ResultsA 47-year-old woman, who had undergone refractive surgery for radial keratotomy in both eyes 22years before the present study, presented to our clinic with blurred vision. Her best corrected visual acuity, with spectacle correction of +3.50 DS/-1.50 DCX130 degrees in the right eye and +3.75 DS/-1.50 DCX80 degrees in the left eye, was 0.2 logMAR and 0.3 logMAR, respectively. Her keratometric readings were 35.75 D/36.75 D at 74 degrees and 35.25 D/36.25 D at 61 degrees, respectively. Prompted by intolerance to glasses, the patient requested for contact lenses. First, we applied a rigid, gas-permeable contact lens. However, we noted poor fitting due to central corneal flattening. Subsequently, we applied a conventional plus spherical soft contact lens (PSSCL), which is thick in the center and can therefore correct hyperopia and low-grade astigmatism simultaneously. The conventional PSSCL showed slightly inferior decentration, with good movement, and the patient was satisfied with it. After ascertaining the patient's living habits, we decided that a daily disposable soft contact lens would most meet her needs. The final prescription was a daily disposable PSSCL; the patient was satisfied with her corrected visual acuity of 0.0 logMAR in the right eye and 0.0 logMAR in left eye. Her daily disposable PSSCL-corrected visual acuity was stable during the 10-month follow-up.ConclusionFor patients displaying hyperopia with astigmatism following radial keratotomy, the PSSCL may confer better corrected visual acuity and acceptability.

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

4.2
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