Evidence-Based Practice in Irregular Cornea Patients’ Management With Contact Lenses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17140/OOJ-2-111Keywords:
Contact Lenses (CL); Rigid Gas Permeable Lenses (RGP); Irregular Cornea; Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs); Disposable Lenses; Frequent-Replacement Lenses; Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) Lenses; Silicone Hydrogel CLs.Abstract
Contact lenses (CLs) are safe and commonly used method to correct the refractive errors. Rigid
gas permeable (RGP) CLs are the first option in visual rehabilitation of patients with irregular
cornea, helping to further delay surgical treatment and improve patients’ quality of life (QoL).
Although, the practice of CLs in patients with irregular cornea must be based on evidence, there
is a lack of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) developed and assessed under high standards
as recommended by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) (http://
www.agreetrust.org/). Current fitting guidelines provided by researchers, practitioners, entities
or manufacturers, are generally supported with relatively small clinical studies or cohort studies
with owner-designs, providing no-objective pathways to conduct the CL fitting that generally
require steep learning curve and practitioners with long experience in CL practice. These
recommendations are usually not clinically validated to prove the quality and applicability
in new clinical scenarios. CL practitioners require evidence-based guidelines and CPGs that
include an objective pathway to choose the CL characteristics like design, geometry, material,
etc., with clinically validated support of the recommendations to calculate lens parameters
such as back optic zone radius, lens diameter and lens geometry. This practice should be based
on clinical research with prospective, randomized and well-designed studies (case-control,
cohort, or clinical trials studies) that have been developed and assessed under high standards
(AGREE). These new evidence-based guidelines or CPGs will not only improve the safety and
transparency of CL fitting procedures, but also guarantee the best patient care with less cost to
patients with irregular cornea requiring RGP, improving their vision and QoL.
References
Stapleton F, Keay L, Jalbert I, Cole N. The epidemiology of contact lens related infiltrates. Optom Vis Sci. 2007; 84: 257- 272. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3180485d5f
Martin R, Rodriguez G, de Juan V. Contact lenses definitions. In: Martin R, Corrales RM, eds. Ocular Surface: Anatomy and Physiology, Disorders and Therapeutic Care. 1st ed. Florida, USA: CRC Press (Taylor & Francis Group); 2012: 249-256.
Giedd B. Understanding the nuances of contact lens materials. Contact Lens Spectr. 1999; 14: 21-28.
Guillon M. Are silicone hydrogel contact lenses more comfortable than hydrogel contact lenses? Eye Contact Lens. 2013; 39: 86-92. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e31827cb99f
Efron N, Morgan PB, Helland M, et al. International rigid contact lens prescribing. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2010; 33(3): 141-143. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2009.11.005
Morgan PB, Efron N, Woods CA; International contact lens prescribing survey consortium. Determinants of the frequency of contact lens wear. Eye Contact Lens. 2013; 39(3): 200-204. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e31827a7ad3
Rabinowitz YS. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol. 1998; 42(4): 297-319. doi: 10.1016/S0039-6257(97)00119-7
Zadnik K, Barr JT, Edrington TB, et al. Baseline findings in the collaborative longitudinal evaluation of keratoconus (CLEK) Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998; 39(13): 2537-2546.
Martin R, Rodriguez G. Reverse geometry contact lens fitting after corneal refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2005; 21(6): 753-756. doi: 10.3928/1081-597X-20051101-16
Martin R, de Juan V. Reverse geometry contact lens fitting in corneal scar caused by perforating corneal injuries. Contact Lens Ant Eye. 2007; 30(1): 67-70. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2006.11.001
De Juan V, Martín R, Rodríguez G. Bitoric rigid gas permeable contact lens fitting for the management of a corneal scar caused by herpes zoster ophthalmicus. Clin Exp Optom. 2012; 95: 229-232. doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2011.00658.x
Martin R, Rodriguez G, de Juan V. Contact lens correction of regular and irregular astigmatism. In: Goggin M, ed. Astigmatism. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech; 2011: 1-24.
Nichols JJ, Marsich MM, Nguyen M, Barr JT, Bullimore MA. Overnight orthokeratology. Optom Vis Sci. 2000; 77: 252- 259.
Li SM, Kang MT, Wu SS, et al. Efficacy, safety and acceptability of orthokeratology on slowing axial elongation in myopic children by meta-analysis. Curr Eye Res. 2016;41: 600- 608. doi: 10.3109/02713683.2015.1050743
Huang J, Wen D, Wang Q, et al. Efficacy comparison of 16 interventions for myopia control in children: A network meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2016; 123(4): 697-708. doi: 10.1016/j. ophtha.2015.11.010
Dillehay SM, Allee V. Material selection. In: Bennet ES, Allee V, eds. Clinical Manual of Contact Lenses. Philadelpia. USA: Lippicontt Williams & Wilkins; 2000: 239-258.
Efron N, Morgan PB, Woods CA. Trends in Australian contact lens prescribing during the first decade of the 21st century (2000-2009). Clin Exp Optom. 2010; 93(4): 243-252. doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2010.00487.x
Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312: 71-72. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
American Academy of Ophthalmology. Preferred Practice pattern guidelines. 2016. Web site. http://one.aao.org/CE/ PracticeGuidelines/PPP.aspx. Accessed June 3, 2017.
Harbour R, Miller J. A new system for grading recommen-dations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ. 2001; 323 (7308): 334-336. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7308.334
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: An emerg-ing consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336: 924-926. doi: 10.1136/ bmj.39489.470347.AD
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008; 336: 995-998. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.BE
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336: 1049-1051. doi: 10.1136/ bmj.39493.646875.AE
Schünemann HJ, Schünemann AHJ, Oxman AD, et al. Grad-ing quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for di-agnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008; 336: 1106-1110. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39500.677199.AE
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Incorporating consid-erations of resources use into grading recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336(7654): 1170-1173. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39504.506319.80
The GRADE working group. GRADE website. 2017. Web site. http://gradeworkinggroup.org/. Accessed June 1, 2017.
Burda BU, Chambers AR, Johnson JC. Appraisal of guide-lines developed by the World Health Organization. Public Health. 2014; 128(5): 444-474. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2014.01.002
American Optometric Association. Optometric clinical prac-tice guideline: Care of the contact lens patient. 2006. Web site. http://www.aoa.org/documents/optometrists/CPG-19.pdf. Ac-cessed June 1, 2017.
Ortiz-Toquero S, Martin M, Rodriguez G, de Juan V, Martin R. Success of rigid gas permeable contact lens fit-ting. Eye Contact Lens. 2017; 43(3): 168-173. doi: 10.1097/ ICL.0000000000000254
Ortiz-Toquero S, Rodriguez G, De Juan V, Martin R. New web-based algorithm to improve rigid gas permeable contact lens fitting in keratoconus. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. In press.
Harthan J, Nau CB, Barr J, et al. Scleral lens prescription and management practices: The SCOPE study. Eye Contact Lens. In press.
der Worp EV, Bornman D, Ferreira DL, et al. Modern scleral contact lenses: A review. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2014; 37(4): 240-250. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2014.02.002
Szczotka-Flynn L, Diaz M. Risk of corneal inflammatory events with silicone hydrogel and low dk hydrogel extended contact lens wear: A meta-analysis. Optom Vis Sci. 2007; 84(4): 247-256.
Ortiz-Toquero S, Martin R. Current optometric practices and attitudes in keratoconus patient management. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. In press.
Sorbara L, Dalton K. The use of video-keratoscopy in predicting contact lens parameters for keratoconic fitting. Cont. Lens Anterior Eye. 2010; 33: 112-118. doi: 10.1016/j. clae.2010.01.002
Jani BR, Szczotka LB. Efficiency and accuracy of two computerized topography software systems for fitting rigid gas permeable contact lenses. CLAO J. 2000; 26: 91-96.
Mandathara PS, Fatima M, Taureen S, et al. RRGP con-tact lens fitting in keratoconus using FITSCAN technology. Cont. Lens Anterior Eye. 2013; 36: 126-129. doi: 10.1016/j. clae.2012.12.002
Bhatoa NS, Hau S, Ehrlich DP. A comparison of a topogra-phy-based rigid gas permeable contact lens design with a conven-tionally fitted lens in patients with keratoconus. Cont Lens Ante-rior Eye. 2010; 33(3): 128-135. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2009.11.004
Nosch DS, Ong GL, Mavrikakis I, Morris J. The application of a computerised videokeratography (CVK) based contact lens fitting software programme on irregularly shaped corneal surfaces. Cont. Lens Anterior Eye. 2007; 30(4): 239-248. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2007.06.003
Siddireddy JS, Mahadevan R. Comparison of conventional method of contact lens fitting and software based contact lens fitting with Medmont corneal topographer in eyes with cor-neal scar. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2013; 36(4): 176-181. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2013.01.006
Ortiz-Toquero S, Rodriguez G, de Juan V, Martin R. Rigid gas permeable contact lens fitting using new software in kerato-conic eyes. Optom Vis Sci. 2016; 93(3): 286-292. doi: 10.1097/ OPX.0000000000000804
Zadnik K, Barr JT. Contact Lens Practice. London, UK: Butterworths Heinemann; 2002.
Romero-Jiménez M, Santodomingo-Rubido J, González-Méijome JM. An assessment of the optimal lens fit rate in keratoconus subjects using three-point-touch and apical touch fitting approaches with the rose K2 lens. Eye Contact Lens. 2013; 39: 269-272. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e318295b4f4
Sorbara L, Woods C, Sivak A, Boshart B. Correction of Keratoconus with RGP Lenses. Waterloo, Canada: Bausch and Lomb; 2010.
Rajabi MT, Mohajernezhad-Fard Z, Naseri SK, et al. Rigid contact lens fitting based on keratometry readings in keratoconus patients: Predicting formula. Int J Ophthalmol. 2011; 4(5): 525- 528. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2011.05.13
Nejabat M, Khalili MR, Dehghani C. Cone location and correction of keratoconus with rigid gas-permeable contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2012; 35(1): 17-21. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2011.08.007
Sorbara L, Mueller K. Effect of lens diameter on lens performance and initial comfort of two types of RGP lenses for keratoconus: A pilot study. J Optom. 2011; 4: 22-29. doi: 10.1016/S1888-4296(11)70036-X
Zhou AJ, Kitamura K, Weissman BA. Contact lens care in keratoconus. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2003; 26: 171-174. doi: 10.1016/S1367-0484(03)00042-0
Rathi VM, Mandathara PS, Taneja M, Dumpati S, Sangwan VS. Scleral lens for keratoconus: Technology update. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015; 9: 2013-2018. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S52483
Pullum KW, Whiting MA, Buckley RJ. Scleral contact lenses: The expanding role. Cornea. 2005; 24: 269-277.
Jaynes JM, Edrington TB, Weissman BA. Predicting scleral RGP lens entrapped tear layer oxygen tensions. Cont Lens Ante-rior Eye. 2015; 38: 44-47. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2014.09.008
Kauffman MJ, Gilmartin CA, Bennett ES, Bassi CJ. A comparison of the short-term settling of three scleral lens designs. Optom Vis Sci. 2014; 91: 1462-1466. doi: 10.1097/ OPX.0000000000000409
Gemoules G. A novel method of fitting scleral lenses using high resolution optical coherence tomography. Eye Contact Lens. 2008; 34(2): 80-83. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e318166394d
Walker MK, Bergmanson JP, Miller WL, Marsack JD, Johnson LA. Complications and fitting challenges associated with scleral contact lenses: A review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2016; 39(2): 88-96. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2015.08.003
Severinsky B, Behrman S, Frucht-Pery J, Solomon A. Scleral contact lenses for visual rehabilitation after penetrating keratoplasty: Long term outcomes. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2014; 37: 196-202. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2013.11.001
Ortiz-Toquero S, Perez S, Rodriguez G, et al. The influence of the refractive correction on the vision-related quality of life in keratoconus patients. Qual Life Res. 2016; 25: 1043-1051. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1117-1
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All content published in The Ophthalmology (TOOJ) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows anyone to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt the work — including for commercial purposes — provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source.