Search

Purpose: To describe patient-specific outcomes of scleral lens wear utilizing a variety of lens designs across multiple practice settings as reported in an international practitioner survey.Methods: An electronic survey was administered to eye care providers who prescribe scleral lenses in which they were asked to describe their most recently examined established scleral lens patient. Data was collected on patient characteristics, lens designs, wearing schedules, care products, and visual and physiological outcomes of lens wear. Descriptive analysis of data was performed.Results: A total of 292 responses were received. Participants represented 26 countries. The most commonly reported indication for scleral lens wear was corneal irregularity (87%) followed by ocular surface disease (8%), refractive error (4%) and 1% with multiple indications. Visual acuity improved from 0.4 ± 0.4 (mean ± SD) to 0.1 ± 0.2 in eyes with corneal irregularity (p < 0.001), from 0.3 ± 0.3 to 0.1 ± 0.3 in eyes with ocular surface disease (p < 0.001), and from 0.1 ± 0.1 to 0.0± [0.1] in eye with refractive error (p = 0.01). Prior to scleral lens wear, corneal staining was present in 55% of patients; staining was present in only 35% of patients following scleral lens wear. The number of topical ophthalmic drops needed decreased from 1.7 ± 0.9 to 0.8 ± 0.8 in patients with corneal irregularity (p < 0.001) and from 3.5 ± 1.7 to 1.1 ± 1.0 in patients with ocular surface disease (p < 0.001). The number of drops used by patients with refractive error remained stable, with these patients using an average of 2.0 ± 1.0 drops prior to scleral lens wear and 1.7 ± 1.5 drops following scleral lens wear.Conclusions: Patients with corneal irregularity experienced the greatest improvement in visual acuity, but patients with ocular surface disease and refractive error also achieved better visual acuity with scleral lenses. Ocular surface condition improved in patients with both corneal irregularity and ocular surface disease; patients with ocular surface disease experienced the most dramatic improvement. Patients who wore scleral lenses to correct uncomplicated refractive error did not experience an improvement in signs or symptoms of ocular surface disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To describe prescriber reported scleral lens fitting and assessment strategies.Methods: The SCOPE (Scleral Lenses in Current Ophthalmic Practice Evaluation) study group designed and administered an IRB approved, electronic survey (REDCap) regarding current scleral lens fitting and assessment methods. The survey was distributed to attendees of the 2017 Global Specialty Lens Symposium.Results: 95 practitioners responded to the survey. Over half of the respondents, 58% (55/95) reported fitting scleral lenses for less than five years (new prescribers), and 42% (40/95) reported fitting scleral lenses for more than five years (experienced prescribers). There was a statistically significant difference between their initial use of technology (χ2 = 21.117, p < 0.0005) in selection of a diagnostic lens. New prescribers consider base curve first (60%, 33/55), while experienced prescribers considered sagittal depth first (63%, 25/40) in their initial scleral lens selection. All of the experienced lens prescribers (100%, 39/39) reported estimating central clearance by comparing thickness of the post-lens tear reservoir to scleral lens thickness using a slit lamp beam at least some of the time, and 62% of new scleral lens prescribers (34/55; χ2 = 19.175, p < 0.0005) reported doing so. All (100%, 40/40) experienced prescribers schedule scleral lens follow-ups at a specific time and assess conjunctival compression (100%, 40/40), conjunctival staining (100%, 39/39), and corneal staining (100%,40/40) after lens removal.Conclusions: Practitioners with varying backgrounds and experience have added sclerals to their lens inventories. However, definite guidelines for fitting have not been developed. The results of a survey are provided; demonstrating that among practitioners with greater than 5 years of scleral lens experience, a consensus has emerged for best practices. Strategies for lens evaluation, which may inform future efforts at generating scleral fitting standards are described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To describe current components of scleral lens curricula at U.S. based optometry colleges and universities.Methods: Contact lens educators were surveyed between June 2019 and August 2019 regarding their optometric scleral lens curriculum. Respondents were asked to describe their experience and involvement in optometric scleral lens education as well as to describe components of scleral lens curricula. Educators were also asked to identify sources of information upon which they rely on in order to stay informed about new developments and best practices in scleral lens prescription and management.Results: Most programs begin scleral lens education during the 3rd year of optometric education (71.2 %; n = 52). Students complete an estimated 18.0 ± 18.1 (range 2-100) scleral lens evaluations during training (n = 36). Ideal fitting characteristics taught include central corneal clearance of 206.3 ± 44 microns (range 150-350, n = 40), limbal clearance of 62.1 ± 23.6 microns (range 20-100, n = 36) with one clock hour or less of conjunctival vascular compression (n = 41). Educators ranked in-person continuing education (61 %, 22/36) followed by contact lens laboratory consults (22 %, 8/36) as the two most important sources of information on best practices in scleral lens prescription and management.Conclusions: Educators are uniquely positioned to guide the next generation of eyecare providers by incorporating and disseminating new research findings into their scleral lens curricula. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]