Corneoscleral junction angle in healthy eyes assessed objectively.

PURPOSE: To introduce a fully objective method to measure corneoscleral junction (CSJ) angle and evaluate the CSJ angle in healthy eyes. METHODS: Corneoscleral topography (Eye Surface Profiler, ESP) was acquired from the right eye of 105 healthy Caucasian subjects, ranging from 18 to 59 years old. From the raw anterior eye height data, the topographic limbus was automatically demarcated in 360 semi-meridians. Further, in limbal location, the CSJ angle was automatically calculated from corneoscleral height data using neighbouring auxiliary points for angle calculation. Additionally, CSJ angle was statistically analysed regionally. RESULTS: The mean CSJ angle was 177.5 ± 1.1°. There is a mean difference of 7.7 ± 3.7° between the steepest (smallest) and flattest (largest) CSJ angle within the same eye. There exist statistically significant differences between temporal (178.2 ± 1.4°) and nasal (176.4 ± 1.1°) regions (paired t-test, p < 0.001), and between superior (178.1 ± 1.1°) and inferior (177.9 ± 1.1°) regions (p = 0.038). CSJ angle is correlated with limbus position (r = 0.43, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CSJ angle is rotationally asymmetric. CSJ varies regionally, being the smallest (steepest) in the nasal region. Significant rough changes in CSJ angle were observed for some healthy individuals.

What we know about the scleral profile and its impact on contact lens fitting.

Scleral contact lens fitting has provided practitioners with one of the earliest pieces of evidence that the sclera was more often asymmetric than symmetric. Some preliminary observations such as different haptic alignment patterns over the sclera in 360 degrees, the appearance of fogging in the fluid chamber and excessive tear out-in flow through specific meridians, quadrants, or areas of the haptic provide evidence of some scleral asymmetry. The advent of technologies that allowed measurement of the scleral profile led to formal research confirming that only about 6% of scleras are symmetric, while the rest are toric, quad-specific, or irregular. This has an evident impact on how to focus scleral lens fitting. Measuring the scleral profile also provided us with true ocular sagittal height data for cord diameters beyond the cornea. Although high variability was expected in pathological eyes, healthy eyes also showed a wide range of ocular sagittal heights. Due to this variability among healthy eyes, a discussion has emerged on whether the one-size-fits-all approach to soft lens fitting is a proper strategy to fit the whole spectrum of sagittal heights. The traditional mode of selecting the parameters for custom soft lenses through corneal parameters is also questioned.

Comparing sagittal heights calculated using corneal parameters and those measured with profilometry.

PURPOSE: To compare the sagittal height of the anterior eye (OC-SAG) calculated using corneal parameters with the OC-SAG measured by profilometry. METHOD: Seventy right eyes of soft contact lens wearers measured with the ESP (Eaglet Eye, The Netherlands) after lens removal were retrospectively analyzed for this study. The OC-SAG of the eyes was calculated using mean k-values, eccentricity and the inner (corneal) radius obtained with the ESP for an 11-mm cord diameter. It was then extrapolated to chord diameters of 14, 14.5 and 15 mm. These values were compared with OC-SAG values obtained with the ESP for the same chord diameters. Additionally, the OC-SAG was calculated through the formula used by a lab that manufactures custom soft lenses (mark'ennovy, Madrid, Spain) and compared again with the values obtained using the ESP. RESULTS: Differences between calculated OC-SAG obviating the shape factor were 121 ± 44, 155 ± 105, 172 ± 117 and 189 ± 129 µm for chord diameters of 11, 14, 14.5 and 15 mm, respectively (p < 0.001). When the shape factor was included in the calculation, differences were 28 ± 48, 62 ± 102, 79 ± 113 and 96 ± 123 µm (p < 0.001). When the inner best fit sphere was used to estimate OC-SAG, differences were 34 ± 11, 0 ± 72, 17 ± 86 and 34 ± 99, respectively, with no significant differences for the 14 and 14.5 mm-chord diameters (p = 0.99 and 0.11, respectively). Correlation coefficients between OC-SAG calculated and measured OC-SAG ranged from 0.53 to 0.90 depending on the chord diameter used. When the mark'ennovy formula was used to calculate the OC-SAG as the lens diameter proposed by the formula, the difference was -47 ± 147 µm (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Differences between the OC-SAG calculated using corneal parameters and that measured with a profilometer are statistically and clinically significant, especially for large chord diameters. The impact of this on contact lens fitting should be addressed in future studies.