Eye & contact lens · 2018
First Experience With the ICD 16.5 Mini-Scleral Lens for Optic and Therapeutic Purposes.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Suarez Cyrielle, Madariaga Virginie, Lepage Benoît, Malecaze Marie, Fournié Pierre, Soler Vincent, Galiacy Stéphane, Mély René, Cassagne Myriam, Malecaze François
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the success rate, efficacy, and safety of the ICD 16.5 mini-scleral gas permeable (GP) contact lens.
METHODS: This prospective study included referred consecutive patients with irregular corneas and severe ocular surface disease (OSD) in treatment failure. All patients were fitted with the ICD 16.5 mini-scleral GP lens. Even though we had some limited experience with scleral lenses, it was our first experience with the ICD 16.5 mini-scleral GP lens. Efficacy was assessed by comparing best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) with the mini-scleral lens to baseline BCVA. A subjective visual functioning questionnaire (comfort score, visual quality score, handling rating, and wearing time) was administered in a face-to-face structured interview.
RESULTS: Thirty-nine eyes of 23 patients with a mean age of 43±16 years were included. Fitting indications were keratoconus (46%), post-penetrating keratoplasty (21%), other irregular astigmatism (15%), and severe OSD (18%). Twenty-five eyes (64%) were successfully fitted with an 18-month follow-up. The mini-scleral GP lens BCVA was 0.16 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR; 20/25) versus a baseline BCVA of 0.44 logMAR (20/63; P<0.001). Comfort and visual quality scores were 8.5/10 and 7.5/10, respectively. No complications were detected in 96% of the eyes (95% confidence interval, 76.1%-99.4%). One eye experienced corneal graft swelling.
CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest that the ICD 16.5 mini-scleral GP lens is an effective and safe alternative for managing challenging corneas in a therapeutic impasse.
METHODS: This prospective study included referred consecutive patients with irregular corneas and severe ocular surface disease (OSD) in treatment failure. All patients were fitted with the ICD 16.5 mini-scleral GP lens. Even though we had some limited experience with scleral lenses, it was our first experience with the ICD 16.5 mini-scleral GP lens. Efficacy was assessed by comparing best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) with the mini-scleral lens to baseline BCVA. A subjective visual functioning questionnaire (comfort score, visual quality score, handling rating, and wearing time) was administered in a face-to-face structured interview.
RESULTS: Thirty-nine eyes of 23 patients with a mean age of 43±16 years were included. Fitting indications were keratoconus (46%), post-penetrating keratoplasty (21%), other irregular astigmatism (15%), and severe OSD (18%). Twenty-five eyes (64%) were successfully fitted with an 18-month follow-up. The mini-scleral GP lens BCVA was 0.16 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR; 20/25) versus a baseline BCVA of 0.44 logMAR (20/63; P<0.001). Comfort and visual quality scores were 8.5/10 and 7.5/10, respectively. No complications were detected in 96% of the eyes (95% confidence interval, 76.1%-99.4%). One eye experienced corneal graft swelling.
CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest that the ICD 16.5 mini-scleral GP lens is an effective and safe alternative for managing challenging corneas in a therapeutic impasse.