Advertisement

Scleral lens prescription and management practices: Emerging consensus

Published:August 27, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2021.101501

      Highlights

      • This study confirmed corneal irregularity as the most common indication for scleral lens wear.
      • The fitting process for scleral lenses is comparable to that of other specialty lenses.
      • The mean diameter of scleral lenses is approximately 16 mm.
      • A majority of patients in this sample wore lenses with spherical landing zones.
      • Care regimen commonly featured daily cleaner, hydrogen peroxide disinfection, and single-use vials of nonpreserved saline.

      Abstract

      Purpose

      To describe international scleral lens prescription and management practices across multiple practice types.

      Methods

      For this cross-sectional study, scleral lens practitioners were asked to complete an electronic survey that requested information about a single scleral lens patient. Data collected included practitioner demographics (practice type, country, years of experience) and patient indications for scleral lens wear, fitting process, lens design, and care products.

      Results

      Data were collected for 259 patients (419 eyes). Most participants (60%) practiced in the US, 75% worked primarily in community practice, and 58% claimed more than 5 years’ experience fitting scleral lenses. Indications for scleral lens wear were corneal irregularity (87%), ocular surface disease (9%), and uncomplicated refractive error (4%). During the fitting process, the mean (SD) number of lenses ordered was 2.4 (1.6) (range, 1–16 lenses) during 3.8 (2.4) visits (range, 1–18 visits). Of patients, 62% used a daily surfactant cleaner, 47% used hydrogen peroxide disinfection, and 67% used single-use vials of nonpreserved saline. Mean lens diameter was 16.2 (1.1) mm (range, 11.8–23.0 mm). The landing zones were spherical (64%), toric (26%), quadrant-specific (7%), and custom (3%) designs. Optical power was spherical in 70%, toric in 27%, and higher-order aberration correcting in 3% of lenses. Only 5 lenses had multifocal optics.

      Conclusions

      General consensus regarding prescribing patterns (lens design, wearing schedules, care products) between US vs non-US, community vs academic, and new vs established providers is reported in this study. Relatively low percentages of patients wearing lenses with advanced landing zones or optical designs suggest that these new options have not been widely adopted.

      Abbreviations:

      ANOVA (analysis of variance), SCOPE (Scleral Lenses in Current Ophthalmic Practice Evaluation)

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Contact Lens and Anterior Eye
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Visser E.S.
        • Van der Linden B.J.
        • Otten H.M.
        • Van der Lelij A.
        • Visser R.
        Medical applications and outcomes of bitangential scleral lenses.
        Optom Vis Sci. 2013; 90: 1078-1085https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000000018
        • Pecego M.
        • Barnett M.
        • Mannis M.J.
        • Durbin-Johnson B.
        Jupiter scleral lenses: the UC davis eye center experience.
        Eye Contact Lens. 2012; 38: 179-182https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0b013e31824daa5e
        • Severinsky B.
        • Millodot M.
        Current applications and efficacy of scleral contact lenses - a retrospective study.
        J Optom. 2010; 3: 158-163https://doi.org/10.1016/S1888-4296(10)70022-4
        • Visser E.S.
        • Visser R.
        • van Lier H.J.
        • Otten H.M.
        Modern scleral lenses part I: clinical features.
        Eye Contact Lens. 2007; 33: 13-20https://doi.org/10.1097/01.icl.0000233217.68379.d5
      1. Pullum KW, Buckley RJ. A study of 530 patients referred for rigid gas permeable scleral contact lens assessment. Cornea 1997;16(6):612-22, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9395869.

      2. Tan DT, Pullum KW, Buckley RJ. Medical applications of scleral contact lenses: 2. Gas-permeable scleral contact lenses. Cornea 1995;14(2):130-7, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7743793.

      3. Harthan J, Nau CB, Barr J, Nau A, Shorter E, Chimato NT, et al. Scleral Lens Prescription and Management Practices: The SCOPE Study. Eye Contact Lens 2018;44 Suppl 1:S228-S32. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000387.

        • Harthan J.
        • Shorter E.
        • Nau C.
        • Nau A.
        • Schornack M.M.
        • Zhuang X.
        • et al.
        Scleral lens fitting and assessment strategies.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2019; 42: 9-14https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2018.10.020
        • Harris P.A.
        • Taylor R.
        • Thielke R.
        • Payne J.
        • Gonzalez N.
        • Conde J.G.
        Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.
        J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42: 377-381https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
        • Harris P.A.
        • Taylor R.
        • Minor B.L.
        • Elliott V.
        • Fernandez M.
        • O'Neal L.
        • et al.
        The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners.
        J Biomed Inform. 2019; 95: 103208https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
        • Schornack M.M.
        • Fogt J.
        • Harthan J.
        • Nau C.B.
        • Nau A.
        • Cao D.
        • et al.
        Factors associated with patient-reported midday fogging in established scleral lens wearers.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2020; 43: 602-608
        • Schornack M.
        • Nau C.
        • Nau A.
        • Harthan J.
        • Fogt J.
        • Shorter E.
        Visual and physiological outcomes of scleral lens wear.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2019; 42: 3-8
      4. Nau CB, Harthan J, Shorter E, Barr J, Nau A, Chimato NT, et al. Demographic Characteristics and Prescribing Patterns of Scleral Lens Fitters: The SCOPE Study. Eye Contact Lens 2018;44 Suppl 1:S265-S72. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000399.

        • Povedano-Montero F.J.
        • Alvarez-Peregrina C.
        • Hidalgo Santa Cruz F.
        • Villa-Collar C.
        • Sanchez V.J.
        Bibliometric study of scientific research on scleral lenses.
        Eye Contact Lens. 2018; 44: S285-S291https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000478
        • Macedo-de-Araújo R.J.
        • van der Worp E.
        • González-Méijome J.M.
        Practitioner learning curve in fitting scleral lenses in irregular and regular corneas using a fitting trial.
        Biomed Res Int. 2019; 2019: 1-11https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5737124
        • Nau A.
        • Shorter E.S.
        • Harthan J.S.
        • Fogt J.S.
        • Nau C.B.
        • Schornack M.
        Multicenter review of impression-based scleral devices.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2020; : 101380https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2020.10.010
        • Schornack M.M.
        • Pyle J.
        • Patel S.V.
        Scleral lenses in the management of ocular surface disease.
        Ophthalmology. 2014; 121: 1398-1405https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.01.028
      5. DeNaeyer G, Sanders DR, van der Worp E, Jedlicka J, Michaud L, Morrison S. Qualitative Assessment of Scleral Shape Patterns Using a New Wide Field Ocular Surface Elevation Topographer: The SSSG Study. J Cont Lens Res Sci 2017;1(1):12-22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22374/jclrs.v1i1.11.

        • Visser E.S.
        • Visser R.
        • Van Lier H.J.
        Advantages of toric scleral lenses.
        Optom Vis Sci. 2006; 83: 233-236https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000214297.38421.15
        • Gumus K.
        • Gire A.
        • Pflugfelder S.C.
        The impact of the Boston ocular surface prosthesis on wavefront higher-order aberrations.
        Am J Ophthalmol. 2011; 151: 682-90 e2https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2010.10.027
        • Hastings G.D.
        • Applegate R.A.
        • Nguyen L.C.
        • Kauffman M.J.
        • Hemmati R.T.
        • Marsack J.D.
        Comparison of wavefront-guided and best conventional scleral lenses after habituation in eyes with corneal ectasia.
        Optom Vis Sci. 2019; 96: 238-247https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001365
        • Barnett M.
        • Carrasquillo K.G.
        • Schornack M.M.
        Clinical outcomes of scleral lens fitting with a data-driven, quadrant-specific design: multicenter review.
        Optom Vis Sci. 2020; 97: 761-765https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001576
      6. Morgan PB, Woods CA, Tranoudis IG, Helland M, Efron N, Jones L, et al. International Contact Lens Prescribing in 2017. Contact Lens Spectrum 2018;33(2018):28-33, https://www.clspectrum.com/issues/2018/january-2018/international-contact-lens-prescribing-in-2017.