Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Eye Contact Lens ; 49(3): 89-91, 2023 Mar 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36602410

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: The benefits of scleral lens (SL) wear have been described in cross-sectional and retrospective studies; however, the frequency of complications associated with SL wear has not, to the best of our knowledge, been determined. From a survey of SL practitioners, we estimated the period prevalence over 1 year of corneal complications that required SL wearers to discontinue lens wear. In a sample of 72,605 wearers, SL wear was discontinued for the following complications: corneal edema, 1.2%; corneal neovascularization, 0.53%; microbial keratitis, 0.45%; and limbal stem cell deficiency, 0.20%. This study design allowed for calculation of period prevalence of these complications rather than complication incidence rates. Information presented in this report may be useful in clinical decision-making and for future study design.


Subject(s)
Contact Lenses, Hydrophilic , Keratitis , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Cross-Sectional Studies , Keratitis/etiology , Cornea , Contact Lenses, Hydrophilic/adverse effects
2.
Eye Contact Lens ; 49(2): 56-62, 2023 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36694309

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To report current trends in scleral contact lens prescription and management, including lens designs prescribed, care products recommended, and procedures performed during routine scleral lens (SL) evaluation. METHODS: An online survey was designed by the Scleral Lenses in Current Ophthalmic Practice Evaluation study team and administered to eye care practitioners attending a specialty contact lens meeting. The survey was available from November 8, 2019, through March 31, 2020. Participants' demographic data were collected, along with information on lens diameters, landing zone (LZ) designs, recommended care products, and components of routine SL evaluation. RESULTS: In total, 715 participants responded to at least one of the survey items of interest. Most lenses prescribed (63%) were 16 mm or more in diameter. Lenses with toric LZs were the most frequently prescribed (48%), followed by spherical (40%), quadrant-specific (8%), and impression-based or image-based designs (3%). Most participants (61%) recommended hydrogen peroxide products for lens care. Nonpreserved saline in a single-use vial was most frequently recommended to fill the bowl of the lens before application. Intraocular pressure was measured during SL evaluation by 45% of participants; 38% of participants routinely measured corneal thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners increasingly are prescribing SLs with advanced LZ designs. Most practitioners recommend hydrogen peroxide-based disinfection systems and single-use vials of nonpreserved saline for lens care and application. Because differences in components of routine SL evaluations were reported, clinicians may benefit from reaching a consensus on essential components of SL evaluation.


Subject(s)
Contact Lenses , Lens, Crystalline , Humans , Hydrogen Peroxide , Surveys and Questionnaires , Sclera , Prescriptions
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...