Eye & contact lens · 2018
Change in Accommodation and Ocular Aberrations in Keratoconus Patients Fitted With Scleral Lenses.
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.
Yildiz Elvin, Toklu Meltem Tunca, Vural Ece Turan, Yenerel Nursal Melda, Bardak Handan, Kumral Esra Turkseven, Bardak Yavuz
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accommodative response to different accommodative stimulus and to determine the changes in ocular higher-order aberrations with accommodation in keratoconus patients fitted with mini scleral lenses.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 15 keratoconus patients wearing mini scleral lenses (Misa Scleral Lens-Microlens, Arnhem, the Netherlands) and 15 keratoconus patients wearing rigid gas permeable lenses. Hartmannn Shack aberrometer (IRX-3; Imagine Eyes, Orsay, France) was used for the evaluation of accommodation. Accommodative responses to the accommodative stimulus ranging from 0.5 to 5.0 diopters (D) with intervals of 0.5 D were recorded. Spherical, coma, trefoil aberration, and root mean square (RMS) of total higher-order aberrations (HOAs, third to sixth orders) at baseline, at 2.5 D stimulus, and at 5 D stimulus were also recorded.
RESULTS: Although accommodative response to accommodative stimulus of 0.5 to 2.5 D (with 0.5 D intervals) was similar in both groups, accommodative response to accommodative stimulus of 3.0 to 5.0 D was significantly lower in keratoconus group wearing mini scleral lenses. The coma, spherical, trefoil aberrations, and the RMS of total HOAs at baseline, at 2.5 D stimulus, and at 5 D stimulus were not significantly different between the groups. However, changes in the coma and trefoil aberrations and RMS of total HOA with 2.5 D and 5.0 D stimulus were significant only in the RGP group.
CONCLUSIONS: Accommodative response to increasing accommodative stimulus was found to be impaired in keratoconus patients wearing mini scleral lenses.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 15 keratoconus patients wearing mini scleral lenses (Misa Scleral Lens-Microlens, Arnhem, the Netherlands) and 15 keratoconus patients wearing rigid gas permeable lenses. Hartmannn Shack aberrometer (IRX-3; Imagine Eyes, Orsay, France) was used for the evaluation of accommodation. Accommodative responses to the accommodative stimulus ranging from 0.5 to 5.0 diopters (D) with intervals of 0.5 D were recorded. Spherical, coma, trefoil aberration, and root mean square (RMS) of total higher-order aberrations (HOAs, third to sixth orders) at baseline, at 2.5 D stimulus, and at 5 D stimulus were also recorded.
RESULTS: Although accommodative response to accommodative stimulus of 0.5 to 2.5 D (with 0.5 D intervals) was similar in both groups, accommodative response to accommodative stimulus of 3.0 to 5.0 D was significantly lower in keratoconus group wearing mini scleral lenses. The coma, spherical, trefoil aberrations, and the RMS of total HOAs at baseline, at 2.5 D stimulus, and at 5 D stimulus were not significantly different between the groups. However, changes in the coma and trefoil aberrations and RMS of total HOA with 2.5 D and 5.0 D stimulus were significant only in the RGP group.
CONCLUSIONS: Accommodative response to increasing accommodative stimulus was found to be impaired in keratoconus patients wearing mini scleral lenses.