6533b823fe1ef96bd127e39b

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Visual quality with corneo-scleral contact lenses after intracorneal ring segment (ICRS) implantation for keratoconus management

Cristina Peris-martínezEsteban PorcarJuan Carlos MontaltEnrique España-gregori

subject

MaleCorneal Wavefront AberrationVisual acuitygenetic structuresVisual Acuity0302 clinical medicineIntracorneal ring segmentProsthesis FittingContrast (vision)media_commonmedicine.diagnostic_testQuality assessmentCorneoscleral contact lensProstheses and ImplantsGeneral MedicineMiddle AgedRefractive ErrorsEye examinationFemalemedicine.symptomScleraAdultmedicine.medical_specialtyKeratoconusCorneal ectasiaContact LensesCorneal Stromamedia_common.quotation_subjectKeratoconusContrast SensitivityProsthesis ImplantationYoung Adult03 medical and health sciencesOphthalmologyAberrometrymedicineHumansIntracorneal ring segmentbusiness.industryAberrometryCorneal Topographymedicine.diseaseeye diseasesContact lensOphthalmology030221 ophthalmology & optometrysense organsbusiness030217 neurology & neurosurgeryOptometry

description

Purpose: To evaluate the visual quality results when fitting a corneo-scleral contact lens (CScL) after intracorneal ring segment (ICRS) implantation for keratoconus management. Methods: Twenty-seven eyes of 27 patients with keratoconus underwent ICRS implantation and had CScL fitted as their visual quality was unsatisfactory with their spectacles or contact lenses. Patients received a complete eye examination, refraction and visual acuity assessment, anterior eye biomicroscopy, ocular fundus examination, corneal topographic analysis, endothelial-cell count, and visual quality assessment using contrast sensitivity and aberrometry tests. A diagnostic trial set was used in the fitting process, and patients were assessed according to a standardised methodology, including subjective visual quality and comfort, and contact lens usage time. The follow-up period was one year. Results: After fitting CScL, log-MAR visual acuity values improved significantly in relation to the best spectacle-corrected vision (0.22 +/- 0.17 vs 0.00 +/- 0.12; p < 0.001). Total high-order aberrations decreased 33% (2.62 +/- 1.31 vs 1.75 +/- 1.81 pm; p < 0.009) and the spatial frequencies of contrast sensitivity all improved (all p < 0.05). Furthermore, 70.37% of patients reported high ratings of subjective visual quality (favourable and very favourable) and prolonged usage times (11.78 +/- 3.93 h). After wearing CScL for one year, no adverse ocular effects or clinically relevant changes in corneal parameters, visual quality, comfort ratings or usage time were found. Conclusion: This CScL appears to be an alternative reasonable option for keratoconic eyes with ICRS placement, providing an improvement in subjective visual quality.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2018.07.006