Search

SIGNIFICANCE Scleral lenses (SLs) are increasingly being considered as the initial correction for patients with keratoconus. In this study, keratoconus patients report higher levels of comfort and visual satisfaction with SL compared with corneal gas-permeable lenses (GPs). PURPOSE This study aimed to compare patient satisfaction and care burden associated with GP and SL for the management of keratoconus. METHODS An electronic survey was distributed by the National Keratoconus Foundation from October 2016 to March 2017. Age at diagnosis, initial and current treatment, lens complications, access to care, lens handling time, and annual out-of-pocket treatment costs were collected. Vision, lens comfort, and ease of use satisfaction were rated from 1 to 5. RESULTS A total of 422 responses were received, including 75 bilateral GP and 76 bilateral SL wearers. Scleral lens wearers had greater satisfaction with vision (3.2 ± 1.1 [SL] vs. 2.6 ± 1.1 [GP]; P < .001) and comfort (3.3 ± 1.0 [SL] vs. 2.2 ± 1.2 [GP]; P < .001) but similar ease of use satisfaction in both groups (2.8 ± 1.1 [SL] vs. 2.7 ± 1.1 [GP]; P < .90). Both groups reported issues with cloudy or foggy vision (GP, 63%; SL, 58%) and contact lens discomfort (GP, 77%; SL, 67%). Although GP wearers reported more issues with lens movement or loss (40 [GP] vs. 18% [SL]), they had fewer difficulties with halos (53 vs. 72% [SL]) and lens handling (40%) compared with SL wearers (63%). Gas-permeable lens (48%) and SL (45%) wearers spend 6 to 10 minutes daily handling their lenses. Sixty percent of GP wearers reported annual out-of-pocket cost expenses less than U.S.$1000, whereas only 41% of SL wearers reported the same. CONCLUSIONS Scleral lens wearers with keratoconus report greater satisfaction with vision and comfort than do GP wearers, although both groups reported cloudy vision and lens discomfort.

Objectives To assess dry eye symptoms associated with different contact lens modalities in patients with keratoconus using a dry eye questionnaire. Methods An online survey was distributed by the National Keratoconus Foundation. The survey asked participants to report demographic characteristics, current optical correction, age at the time of diagnosis of keratoconus, and contact lens history. The 12-item Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire was also completed. Data from participants wearing the same contact lens modality bilaterally were analyzed. Results The survey was completed by 197 individuals wearing the same contact lens modality bilaterally. The average age of participants at the time of the survey was 47.2±14.8 years (range: 15-87 years), and the average age at which keratoconus was diagnosed was 26.1±9.9 years (range: 8-55 years). The mean overall OSDI score of all participants was 40.2±22.8 (range: 0-100). There was no difference in the mean OSDI scores based on current contact lens modality type (F=1.79; n=187; P=0.13). Based on an OSDI score of 33 or higher, 90% of participants reported symptoms indicative of dry eye disease. Scleral lens wearers reported less discomfort on the individual items related to windy and low-humidity conditions. Conclusions Individuals with keratoconus, irrespective of contact lens modality, report a high incidence of dry eye symptoms.

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.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.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.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.

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 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.