Comparison of Rigid Gas-permeable Contact Lenses with Soft Hydrogel Contact Lens in Keratoconus and their Impact on Quality of Life

J. Ram, S. Yangzes, Amit Gupta, A. Thakur
{"title":"Comparison of Rigid Gas-permeable Contact Lenses with Soft Hydrogel Contact Lens in Keratoconus and their Impact on Quality of Life","authors":"J. Ram, S. Yangzes, Amit Gupta, A. Thakur","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10025-1178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ab s t r Ac t Purpose: To compare the efficacy of rigid gas-permeable (RGP) lens and soft hydrogel lens in patients with keratoconus and to assess their impact on quality of life (QoL). Setting: Tertiary care referral center. Materials and methods: A randomized, comparative, clinical interventional trial was conducted in patients with keratoconus. From July 2014 to June 2017, patients were enrolled for this study and were fitted with RGP contact lens (CL) (RoseK© Menicon Limited) or silicone hydrogel lens (Kerasoft© International Limited). The two groups were compared in terms of best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), best CL corrected visual acuity (BCLCVA), corneal topography, Schirmer’s test, and contrast sensitivity. Quality of life was assessed by asking the patients to fill a self-reported questionnaire. Results: Forty eyes were enrolled and randomized to the Rose-K and Kerasoft groups. The two groups were comparable with respect to the mean patient age, sex, and mean K values. A statistically significant improvement was observed in BCLCVA in both groups at 6 months (p < 0.01). The Kerasoft group had a better comfort score at 6 months’ follow-up compared to Rose K (p < 0.05). In terms of contrast sensitivity, Rose K group fared better than Kerasoft group (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Both Kerasoft and Rose K groups showed improvement in visual acuity. Kerasoft lens users had better comfort and also required less number of trials before final fit. Rose K lens provided a better contrast sensitivity. We conclude that Kerasoft lens can be considered as a good alternative for optical correction of corneal astigmatism in patients with keratoconus, not tolerating RGP lenses.","PeriodicalId":92051,"journal":{"name":"International journal of keratoconus and ectatic corneal diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of keratoconus and ectatic corneal diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10025-1178","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ab s t r Ac t Purpose: To compare the efficacy of rigid gas-permeable (RGP) lens and soft hydrogel lens in patients with keratoconus and to assess their impact on quality of life (QoL). Setting: Tertiary care referral center. Materials and methods: A randomized, comparative, clinical interventional trial was conducted in patients with keratoconus. From July 2014 to June 2017, patients were enrolled for this study and were fitted with RGP contact lens (CL) (RoseK© Menicon Limited) or silicone hydrogel lens (Kerasoft© International Limited). The two groups were compared in terms of best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), best CL corrected visual acuity (BCLCVA), corneal topography, Schirmer’s test, and contrast sensitivity. Quality of life was assessed by asking the patients to fill a self-reported questionnaire. Results: Forty eyes were enrolled and randomized to the Rose-K and Kerasoft groups. The two groups were comparable with respect to the mean patient age, sex, and mean K values. A statistically significant improvement was observed in BCLCVA in both groups at 6 months (p < 0.01). The Kerasoft group had a better comfort score at 6 months’ follow-up compared to Rose K (p < 0.05). In terms of contrast sensitivity, Rose K group fared better than Kerasoft group (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Both Kerasoft and Rose K groups showed improvement in visual acuity. Kerasoft lens users had better comfort and also required less number of trials before final fit. Rose K lens provided a better contrast sensitivity. We conclude that Kerasoft lens can be considered as a good alternative for optical correction of corneal astigmatism in patients with keratoconus, not tolerating RGP lenses.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
硬质透气性隐形眼镜与软性水凝胶隐形眼镜治疗圆锥角膜的比较及其对生活质量的影响
目的:比较硬质透气性晶状体(RGP)与软性水凝胶晶状体在圆锥角膜患者中的应用效果,并评价其对生活质量(QoL)的影响。环境:三级保健转诊中心。材料与方法:对圆锥角膜患者进行随机、比较、临床介入试验。2014年7月至2017年6月,患者被纳入本研究,并配戴RGP隐形眼镜(CL) (RoseK©Menicon Limited)或硅酮水凝胶隐形眼镜(Kerasoft©International Limited)。比较两组患者最佳眼镜矫正视力(BSCVA)、最佳CL矫正视力(BCLCVA)、角膜地形图、Schirmer试验、对比敏感度。通过要求患者填写一份自我报告的问卷来评估生活质量。结果:40只眼被纳入,随机分为Rose-K组和Kerasoft组。两组患者的平均年龄、性别和平均K值具有可比性。两组患者在6个月时BCLCVA均有显著改善(p < 0.01)。随访6个月时,Kerasoft组患者舒适度评分高于Rose K组(p < 0.05)。对比敏感度方面,Rose K组优于Kerasoft组(p = 0.001)。结论:Kerasoft组和Rose K组视力均有明显改善。Kerasoft镜片用户有更好的舒适度,并且在最终匹配之前需要较少的试验次数。玫瑰K镜头提供了更好的对比灵敏度。我们的结论是,Kerasoft晶状体可以被认为是对不耐受RGP晶状体的圆锥角膜患者角膜散光进行光学矫正的良好选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Variable Thickness Intracorneal Ring Segment for the Treatment of Keratoconus Treatment of High Astigmatism after Penetrating Keratoplasty in Patients with Keratoconus with 800 µm Base Intrastromal Corneal Ring Segments: A Retrospective Study Transepithelial (Epi-on) Corneal Collagen Cross-linking with Supplemental Oxygen as a Treatment for Patients with Progressive Keratoconus in Oman: 1-year Results Superior Keratoconus: A Case Report and Review of Literature Two-year Outcomes of Transepithelial Customized Cross-linking for Mild to Moderate Keratoconus
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1