Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association · 2018
Assessment of a practitioner's perception of scleral contact lens complications.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pucker Andrew D, Bickle Katherine M, Jones-Jordan Lisa A, Ticak Anita, Kwan Justin T, Kuhn Jamie, Mathew Jessica, Kunnen Carolina M E
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this survey was to better understand scleral lens (SL) practitioners' fitting preferences and minor SL complications and their subsequent treatments.
METHOD: Practitioners who attended the 2017 Global Specialty Lens Symposium were asked to complete an electronic questionnaire that was created by the investigators, a survey that asked practitioners about their SL fitting experience and preferences, their patients' experience with poor SL wetting, SL fogging, ocular symptoms (redness, pain/discomfort, dryness), and blurred central and side vision, and how the practitioners treated these conditions.
RESULTS: This study analyzed data from 164 SL practitioners. The practitioners had been in practice for 16.3 ± 13.4 years, had been fitting SL for 5.5 ± 5.0 years, and fit 7.4 ± 7.1 SL/month. Practitioners preferred a SL with a final central corneal clearance of ∼200 μm and an overall diameter between 15.1 mm to 16.5 mm. Poor SL wetting (90.8% of practitioners documented condition), SL fogging (84.8%), blurred central vision (40.2%), ocular redness (34.8%), ocular dryness (24.4%), ocular pain/discomfort (20.7%), and blurred side vision (12.8%) were encountered by the practitioners. Practitioners preferred treating poor wetting and fogging with lens removal, cleaning, and reapplication, blurred central vision with a lens power change, blurred side (peripheral) vision, ocular redness, and ocular pain with a lens parameter change, and dryness with artificial tears.
CONCLUSIONS: Most SL practitioners preferred a SL central corneal clearance of ∼200 μm, and they occasionally encountered SL-related complications in their practice, which they treated similarly to corneal gas permeable CLs.
METHOD: Practitioners who attended the 2017 Global Specialty Lens Symposium were asked to complete an electronic questionnaire that was created by the investigators, a survey that asked practitioners about their SL fitting experience and preferences, their patients' experience with poor SL wetting, SL fogging, ocular symptoms (redness, pain/discomfort, dryness), and blurred central and side vision, and how the practitioners treated these conditions.
RESULTS: This study analyzed data from 164 SL practitioners. The practitioners had been in practice for 16.3 ± 13.4 years, had been fitting SL for 5.5 ± 5.0 years, and fit 7.4 ± 7.1 SL/month. Practitioners preferred a SL with a final central corneal clearance of ∼200 μm and an overall diameter between 15.1 mm to 16.5 mm. Poor SL wetting (90.8% of practitioners documented condition), SL fogging (84.8%), blurred central vision (40.2%), ocular redness (34.8%), ocular dryness (24.4%), ocular pain/discomfort (20.7%), and blurred side vision (12.8%) were encountered by the practitioners. Practitioners preferred treating poor wetting and fogging with lens removal, cleaning, and reapplication, blurred central vision with a lens power change, blurred side (peripheral) vision, ocular redness, and ocular pain with a lens parameter change, and dryness with artificial tears.
CONCLUSIONS: Most SL practitioners preferred a SL central corneal clearance of ∼200 μm, and they occasionally encountered SL-related complications in their practice, which they treated similarly to corneal gas permeable CLs.