Jennifer Harthan1, Ellen Shorter2, Cherie Nau3, Amy Nau4, Muriel M Schornack3, Xiaohua Zhuang5, Jennifer Fogt6. 1. Illinois College of Optometry, Chicago, Illinois, United States. Electronic address: jharthan@ico.edu. 2. University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States. 4. Korb and Associates, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. 5. Illinois College of Optometry, Chicago, Illinois, United States. 6. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Muriel M Schornack; Jennifer Fogt; Amy Nau; Cherie B Nau; Jennifer S Harthan; Dingcai Cao; Ellen Shorter Journal: Cont Lens Anterior Eye Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 3.077