ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Corneal Diseases/surgery , Lens Implantation, Intraocular/methods , Lenses, Intraocular , Sclera/surgery , Visual Acuity , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Child , Child, Preschool , Corneal Diseases/diagnosis , Corneal Diseases/physiopathology , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Prosthesis Design , Treatment Outcome , Young AdultABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare visual and optical outcomes of pupil-centered vs vertex-centered ablation in patients undergoing laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for hyperopia. DESIGN: Randomized, double-masked, prospective, single-center trial. SETTING: Institutional practice. STUDY POPULATION: Sixty eyes of 30 patients with low and moderate hyperopia. Intervention procedure: Eyes underwent LASIK (Allegretto excimer laser). In 30 eyes, the ablation was centered on the pupil, while in the 30 other eyes the ablation was centered on the corneal reflex. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was the safety index. Main secondary outcome measures were efficacy index, manifest refraction, uncorrected visual acuity, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and ocular high-order aberrations for a 6-mm pupil size. RESULTS: At 3 months postoperatively, the safety index was 0.99 ± 0.04 in the pupil-centered group and 0.99 ± 0.08 in the vertex-centered group (P = .97). The efficacy index was also similar for both groups: 0.96 ± 0.05 in pupil-centered eyes and 0.93 ± 0.09 in vertex-centered eyes (P = .31). Optical aberrations were similar for pupil-centered and vertex-centered eyes. Considering only eyes showing large pupil decentration, we found a tendency for better visual results in favor of pupil-centered eyes in terms of safety index and a slight but significant increase of coma in vertex-centered eyes. CONCLUSION: LASIK is an effective procedure for treatment of hyperopia. Pupil-centered and vertex-centered treatments provide similar visual and optical outcomes. However, in eyes showing large temporal pupil decentration, pupil-centered ablation seemed to produce a lower amount of coma and, as a consequence, a reduced loss of BCVA compared with vertex-centered patients.