Contemporary Scleral Lenses: Theory and Application

Barnett, Melissa; Johns, Lynette; Eiden, Barry; Messer, Brooke; Baldwin, Bruce A.; Koppen, Carina; Ezekiel, Damon J.; Jacobs, Deborah S.; Worp, Eef van der; Visser, Esther-Simone; Yoon, Geunyoung; DeNaeyer, Gregory; Otten, Henny M.; Marsack, Jason D; Jedlicka, Jason; Sonsino, Jeffrey; McMahon, Jennifer A.; Li, Jennifer Y.; Carrasquillo, Karen G.; Elving-Kokke, Karolien; Michaud, Langis; Walker, Maria; Lipson, Michael; Toabe, Mindy; Schornack, Muriel; Caroline, Patrick; Rosenthal, Perry; Kojima, Randy; Woo, Stephanie L.; Bowden, Tim; Park, Young Kee

doi:10.2174/97816810856611170401

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous publications that have analyzed scleral shape concluded that the sclera is asymmetrical in shape, 70 , 107 , 116 with the nasal portion being flatter than other areas of the eye. Only 5.7% (Group 1) of 140 eyes evaluated with a scleral topographer (sMap3D) had a primarily spherical sclera.…”

Section: Measuring Scleral Lens Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

How Can We Best Measure the Performance of Scleral Lenses? Current Insights

Macedo-de-Araújo¹,

Fadel²,

Barnett³

2022

OPTO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scleral lenses (SLs) present several unique advantageous characteristics for patients. As these lenses are mainly fitted in severely diseased eyes, a thorough evaluation of the ocular surface before and after SL fitting and the on-eye SL fitting evaluation are essential and help minimize potential physiological complications. This review will explore the current and emerging techniques and instrumentation to best measure SL performance ensuring optimal lens fitting, visual quality, comfort and physiological responses, highlighting some potential complications and follow-up recommendations. A single physician could perform the great majority of evaluations. Still, the authors consider that the assessment of SL fitting should be a collaborative and multidisciplinary job, involving contact lens practitioners, ophthalmologists and the industry. This publication has reviewed the most up-to-date work and listed the most used techniques; however, the authors encourage the development of more evidence-based recommendations for SL clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Measuring Scleral Lens Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

How Can We Best Measure the Performance of Scleral Lenses? Current Insights

Macedo-de-Araújo¹,

Fadel²,

Barnett³

2022

OPTO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, as these lenses land exclusively on the conjunctiva tissue underlying the sclera, practitioners need to fully understand its complex anatomy and geometry [4][5][6]. This will aid to find the lens landing zone that will be close to the overall scleral shape of the eye being fitted in order to prevent some common scleral lens problem, which can be a challenge for a novel practitioner [7]. Second, as the first aim of these lenses is to bridge the entire cornea and limbus avoiding touching these structures, the scleral lens sagittal height is another important feature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of central corneal clearance in scleral lenses with an optical biometer and agreement with subjective evaluation

Macedo-de-Araújo

Amorim‐de‐Sousa

Queirós

et al. 2019

Contact Lens and Anterior Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To compare three methods to measure central corneal clearance (CCC) during scleral lens wear: subjective (slit lamp), image processed (ImageJ) and with an optic biometer. The optic biometer technique was validated in comparison to an OCT in the first part of the study. Methods: Twenty-two eyes (11 subjects) with healthy corneas were recruited. Three measures of OCT with scleral lens and ten measurements of axial length (AL) with IOLMaster with and without lens were performed. For the second part, 61 eyes (35 subjects) enrolled in a clinical study were selected. Measurements of CCC were done with IOLMaster, SlitLamp and ImageJ. Results: The measurements of CCC indirectly obtained with IOLMaster had a strong correlation with AS-OCT measurements (r = 0.981), showing a mean difference of 122.18 ± 46.05 μm (higher with IOLMaster). Regarding the second part, measurements of CCC were 238.66 ± 95.94 μm, 250.16 ± 124.31 μm and 263.15 ± 90.60 μm, for the IOLMaster, SlitLamp and ImageJ, respectively. The correlations were higher for ImageJ vs Subjective measure (r = 0.891) than for IOL vs Subjective (r = 0.748) and IOL vs ImageJ (r = 0.745). Analysis of differences and correlations between SlitLamp and ImageJ through time showed a mean difference of-32.28 ± 89.95 μm (r = 0.683) at V1month, 12.53 ± 59.46 μm (r = 0.850) at V6months and 11.57 ± 32.95 μm (r = 0.940) at V12months. Conclusions: It is possible to measure CCC with IOLMaster, considering AL measured with and without lens and lens thickness. The three methods tested have good correspondence, showing that IOLMaster and ImageJ could be objective techniques to measure CCC. Also, it is possible to improve the agreement of subjective measures when compared to objective measures trough time.

show abstract

Scleral lens issues and complications: their recognition, etiology, and management

Vincent

2021

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary Scleral Lenses: Theory and Application

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

How Can We Best Measure the Performance of Scleral Lenses? Current Insights

How Can We Best Measure the Performance of Scleral Lenses? Current Insights

Determination of central corneal clearance in scleral lenses with an optical biometer and agreement with subjective evaluation

Scleral lens issues and complications: their recognition, etiology, and management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About