4.3 Article

Anterior Corneal Curvature and Aberration Changes After Scleral Lens Wear in Keratoconus Patients With and Without Ring Segments

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000534

关键词

Scleral lenses; Keratoconus; Corneal curvature; Corneal aberrations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate changes in the anterior corneal curvature and aberrometry after scleral contact lens wear in keratoconus (KC) subjects with and without intracorneal ring segments (ICRS). Methods: Twenty-six subjects diagnosed with keratoconus were selected to participate in the study. Subjects were divided into 2 groups, those with ICRS (KC-ICRS group) and those without ICRS (KC group). Subjects were instructed to wear 16.5-mm scleral lenses for 8 hours. Topographic and aberrometric parameters were evaluated before lens wear and immediately after lens removal. Anterior corneal curvature was evaluated at corneal diameters of 2, 4, 6, and 8 mm, and corneal aberrations were measured at 4-, 6-, and 8-mm pupil diameters. Results: The mean age of subjects was 36.95 +/- 8.95 years. In KC group, there was a statistically significant flattening of the central corneal curvature, from 6.98 to 7.09 mm (P<0.05). No changes were found in the central corneal curvature in the KC-ICRS group. The KC group showed anterior corneal curvature flattening, mainly in the nasal quadrant. The KC-ICRS group showed flattening primarily in the inferior hemisphere. In the KC group, spherical aberration for 6-mm pupil increased significantly. In the KC-ICRS group, changes in aberrations were significant for high-order root mean square at 4- and 6-mm pupil diameters (P<0.05), for oblique astigmatism for 4 mm and 6 mm, and for vertical coma for 4-mm pupil (P<0.05). Conclusion: Short-term scleral lens wear showed flattening of the anterior corneal surface in all subjects. In the KC group, the flattening was more pronounced in the nasal quadrant while changes were more pronounced inferiorly in KC-ICRS group.

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

4.3
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