Angelica C Scanzera1, Grace Dunbar, Vidhi Shah, Maria Soledad Cortina, Yannek I Leiderman, Ellen Shorter. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (A.C.S., G.D., V.S., M.S.C., Y.L., E.S.), Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL; Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (A.C.S.), School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL; Currently Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (G.D.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; and Dr. Gary Gold & Associates (V.S.), Sunnyvale, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe visual outcomes with various contact lens modalities in patients with a history of ocular trauma who underwent surgical open globe repair. METHODS: Records of all patients with a history of open globe injury and repair at a tertiary care hospital between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016, were reviewed. Demographics, type of injury, and visual acuity were assessed before and after contact lens evaluation. RESULTS: Of 214 patients who underwent open globe repair, 29 (13.6%) were evaluated with a contact lens. Visual acuity improved in 97% (28 of 29) of patients from 1.47±0.75 to 0.67±0.71 logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) with manifest refraction to 0.28±0.45 logMAR with contact lenses (n=29; P<0.0001). Corneal opacity was the most common clinical indication (20 of 29) for fitting followed by aphakia (13 of 29). A range of contact lens modalities, including corneal rigid gas-permeable (12 of 28), soft (9 of 28), hybrid (3 of 28), scleral gas-permeable (2 of 28), and piggyback (2 of 28) lenses were prescribed. CONCLUSION: In this study, patients with a history of trauma and open globe repair with good neurosensory visual potential had improvements in visual acuity with contact lens greater than manifest refraction. Soft and gas-permeable lenses were used to improve visual acuity in patients with a history of open globe repair and corneal scarring, aphakia, iris abnormalities, or other ocular sequelae. Although corneal rigid gas-permeable lenses were prescribed most often, additional consideration should be given to other contact lens modalities, including soft, piggyback, hybrid, and scleral gas-permeable lenses.
OBJECTIVES: To describe visual outcomes with various contact lens modalities in patients with a history of ocular trauma who underwent surgical open globe repair. METHODS: Records of all patients with a history of open globe injury and repair at a tertiary care hospital between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016, were reviewed. Demographics, type of injury, and visual acuity were assessed before and after contact lens evaluation. RESULTS: Of 214 patients who underwent open globe repair, 29 (13.6%) were evaluated with a contact lens. Visual acuity improved in 97% (28 of 29) of patients from 1.47±0.75 to 0.67±0.71 logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) with manifest refraction to 0.28±0.45 logMAR with contact lenses (n=29; P<0.0001). Corneal opacity was the most common clinical indication (20 of 29) for fitting followed by aphakia (13 of 29). A range of contact lens modalities, including corneal rigid gas-permeable (12 of 28), soft (9 of 28), hybrid (3 of 28), scleral gas-permeable (2 of 28), and piggyback (2 of 28) lenses were prescribed. CONCLUSION: In this study, patients with a history of trauma and open globe repair with good neurosensory visual potential had improvements in visual acuity with contact lens greater than manifest refraction. Soft and gas-permeable lenses were used to improve visual acuity in patients with a history of open globe repair and corneal scarring, aphakia, iris abnormalities, or other ocular sequelae. Although corneal rigid gas-permeable lenses were prescribed most often, additional consideration should be given to other contact lens modalities, including soft, piggyback, hybrid, and scleral gas-permeable lenses.
Authors: Andrew McLaughlin; Marcus H Colyer; Denise S Ryan; Rose K Sia; Eric D Weichel; Andrew Spiegelman; S G Eaddy; Robert A Mazzoli; Kraig S Bower Journal: Mil Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 1.437