This page is for health professionals only.

NO
I AM NOT
A HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL.
Update on Contact Lens Treatment of Keratoconus
PDF
Cite
Share
Request
Review
VOLUME: 50 ISSUE: 4
P: 234 - 244
August 2020

Update on Contact Lens Treatment of Keratoconus

Turk J Ophthalmol 2020;50(4):234-244
1. Private Practice, İstanbul, Turkey
2. University of Health Sciences Turkey, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, Clinic of Ophthalmology, İstanbul, Turkey
No information available.
No information available
Received Date: 09.12.2019
Accepted Date: 01.04.2020
Publish Date: 26.08.2020
PDF
Cite
Share
Request

ABSTRACT

Keratoconus (KC) is a progressive disease that leads to major losses of visual quality and related quality of life. Contact lens (CL) application has a primary place and importance in the correction of the optic problems due to the disease. The corneal changes and increased irregular astigmatism that occur with KC progression necessitate special CL designs and fitting methods. In addition to disease stage, the patient’s lens tolerance also plays a role in the application of CLs in KC patients. With recent advances in materials and design technology, the CLs used in the treatment of KC have developed considerably and there are various types available. In this review, we discuss the wide range of CLs, including rigid and soft lenses, hybrid and scleral lenses, and even custom lens designs, in light of recent scientific advances.

Keywords:
Keratoconus, contact lenses, rigid gas-permeable lenses, soft lenses, piggyback lenses, hybrid lenses, scleral lenses

Introduction

Although contact lens (CL) fitting in keratoconus (KC) is a long and complicated process, it can remarkably improve patients’ quality of life, and therefore should be carried out with patience and care. In other words, every well-informed and dedicated effort to apply CLs in patients with KC may be a door to illumination or a magic touch that shapes the future of these individuals, who live in a blurry and somewhat hopeless world.

KC is a progressive, non-inflammatory corneal disease characterized by thinning of the central and often the paracentral inferior cornea, steepening of the corneal curvature, and asymmetry between superior and inferior keratometric values, resulting in irregular myopic astigmatism. Corneal changes are usually bilateral but asymmetric. Unilateral KC has been described at rates of 0.5-4.5%, but with current topography and corneal aberration measurement techniques, it has been reported that changes that may be associated with subclinical KC can also be detected in the apparently normal fellow eye.1 Age of onset is in the early teens or twenties, with progression continuing until the third or fourth decade, and the rate of progression varies among individuals.2 KC is classified as mild, moderate, or severe based on ocular signs and symptoms. In the late stages of the disease, corneal thinning and protrusion increase, higher-order aberrations also increase, and visual acuity deteriorates substantially.3

Because the prevalence of KC is affected by many factors including geographic location and the diagnostic criteria used, different rates have been reported around the world.4,5 Recent studies indicate that with the use of common diagnostic criteria and advanced technology such as corneal topography, the annual incidence and prevalence of KC may be up to 5-10 times the previous values.6 KC affects both sexes. While previous studies indicated no marked difference between the sexes, more recent studies have revealed that KC is more common among males.6,7

Family history is present in 10-20% of patients, and there are studies suggesting that genetic inheritance plays an important role.8 KC is often concomitant with atopy, vernal keratoconjunctivitis, asthma, sleep apnea, mitral valve prolapse, retinitis pigmentosa, Down syndrome, certain noninflammatory connective tissue diseases, and also rigid CL use and eye rubbing, due to their environmental and mechanical effects.7,8,9,10

Although it is usually difficult to establish causal relationships, some of the conditions associated with KC point to genetic factors, while others indicate recurrent mechanical trauma.9 Thus, the point of consensus is that KC has a multifactorial and multigenetic nature and that environmental factors also play an important role in the development of the disease, or in other words, that the disease develops due to genetic predisposition together with these environmental effects.10 Recent studies have suggested as a possible pathogenic mechanism that cytokines produced in response to epithelial trauma induced by eye rubbing may reduce the durability of the corneal tissue, leading to structural changes that manifest with cone formation.10 On the other hand, it has been demonstrated in several studies that redox imbalance due to low levels of antioxidant enzymes in the cornea causes increased oxidative stress in keratoconic eyes, and it is now being suggested that tissue destruction caused by the resulting reactive oxygen/nitrogen species may contribute to stromal thinning in KC.11

Each of these facets should be kept in mind when planning treatment, preparing a patient for a lifetime with this chronic disease, and implementing and monitoring optic correction systems, especially CLs.

Recent advances in anterior segment imaging systems have contributed significantly to the early diagnosis and treatment of KC and to the monitoring of pathological changes that occur in KC. Today, advanced computerized corneal topography and tomography systems allow detailed assessment of changes in the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces in KC and changes in corneal thickness that occur as the disease progresses. Furthermore, changes in corneal epithelial thickness are detected with optical coherence tomography, while changes at the cellular level are detected by in vivo confocal microscopy, which enables the follow-up of the natural course of this progressive disease as well as facilitates the guidance, supervision, and close monitoring of treatment response in CL applications.12

There is no definitive treatment for KC. However, corneal collagen crosslinking can be performed to alter corneal biomechanical properties and stop or slow the progression of ectasia. Nevertheless, CLs are still necessary to improve vision quality before and after these disease-stabilizing procedures.10

Because KC is a lifelong disease with a progressive course marked by a gradual decline in the quality of vision, it also seriously impairs quality of life in affected individuals. Survey studies based on the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ) indicate vision-related impairment of quality of life of patients with KC. However, it was also reported that patients who use CLs have the highest quality of life scores.13,14,15

The process of increasing vision quality in KC patients is usually complex and closely associated with the rate of disease progression. In the early stages, characterized by regular astigmatism, satisfactory results can be achieved with the use of eyeglasses. In the advanced stages, a wide variety of CL options can be used for irregular astigmatism.16

In the multicenter and long-term CLEK (Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of KC) study, the main results of which were published in 1998, it was reported that only 16% of patients diagnosed with KC used spectacles as a primary optical device, 65-75% used CLs, mostly rigid gas-permeable CLs (RGPCLs), and surgical methods were preferred to treat the 10-20% of patients for whom these methods were not effective.9 In their study reviewing treatment methods used in the past 20 years, Mandathara et al.17 reported that CLs remain the main method for the treatment of KC, and that their use is associated with only reversible complications that do not threaten vision. They also stated that surgical methods such as intracorneal ring segment or phakic intraocular lens implantation can be used to treat patients who are unable to use CLs and that lamellar or full-thickness corneal transplantation may become necessary in case of extreme corneal thinning or scarring, but these surgical interventions can often result in temporary inflammatory responses and permanent sequelae.17

CL fitting is a long and arduous process for both the patient and the practitioner, and the three main goals of this process are to achieve optimal comfort, increase vision quality, and provide the best possible fit for the irregular corneal structure. Today, a wide array of lens options are used to achieve these goals, including corneal, semi-scleral, and scleral lenses, which differ in diameter, and rigid, soft, and hybrid lenses or piggyback lens systems, which differ in the materials used.9,13

In this review, we discuss these CLs in terms of visual performance, fitting characteristics, options for changing and combined use to increase success, and potential complications, in light of technological advances and current scientific studies.

References

1
Aksoy S, Akkaya S, Özkurt Y, Kurna S, Açıkalın B, Şengör T. Topography and higher order corneal aberrations of the fellow eye in unilateral keratoconus. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2017;47:249-254.
2
Millodot M, Ortenberg I, Lahav-Yacouel K, Behrman S. Effect of ageing on keratoconic corneas. J Optom. 2016;9:72-77.
3
Tuncer Z, Soylu T. Use of Contact Lenses in Eyes with Severe Keratoconus: Long-term Results. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2012;42:202-206
4
Jonas JB, Nangia V, Matin A, Kulkarni M, Bhojwani K. Prevalence and associations of keratoconus in rural Maharashtra in Central India: the central India eye and medical study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148:760-765.
5
Kennedy RH, Bourne WM, Dyer JA. A 48-year clinical and epidemiologic study of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 1986;101:267-273.
6
Godefrooij DA, de Wit GA, Uiterwaal CS, Imhof SM, Wisse RP. Age-specific incidence and prevalence of keratoconus: a nationwide registration study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;175:169-172.
7
Woodward MA, Blachley TS, Stein JD. The Association between sociodemographic factors, common systemic diseases, and keratoconus: an analysis of a nationwide heath care claims database. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:457-465.
8
Karolak JA, Gajecka M. Genomic strategies to understand causes of keratoconus. Mol Genet Genomics. 2017;292:251-269.
9
Zadnik K, Barr JT, Edrington TB, Everett DF, Jameson M, McMahon TT, Shin JA, Sterling JL, Wagner H, Gordon MO. Baseline findings in the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998;39:2537-2546.
10
Gomes JA, Tan D, Rapuano CJ, Belin MW, Ambrósio Jr R, Guell JL, Malecaze F, Nishida K, Sangwan VS, Group of Panelists for the Global Delphi Panel of Keratoconus and Ectatic Diseases.  Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases. Cornea. 2015; 34:359-369.
11
Atilano SR, Lee DH, Fukuhara PS, Chwa M, Nesburn AB, Udar N, Cristina Kenney M. Corneal Oxidative Damage in Keratoconus Cells due to Decreased Oxidant Elimination from Modified Expression Levels of SOD Enzymes, PRDX6, SCARA3, CPSF3, and FOXM1. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2019;14:62-70.
12
Gokul A, Vellara HR, Patel DV. Advanced anterior segment imaging in keratoconus: a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;46:122-132.
13
Wagner H, Barr JT, Zadnik K. Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study: methods and findings to date. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2007;30:223-232.
14
Kymes SM, Walline JJ, Zadnik K, et al. Collaborative longitudinal evaluation of keratoconus study group. Quality of life in keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:527–535.
15
Aydin Kurna S, Altun A, Gencaga T, Akkaya S, Sengor T. Vision related quality of life in patients with keratoconus. J Ophthalmol. 2014;2014:694542
16
Rico-Del-Viejo L, Garcia-Montero M, Hernández-Verdejo JL, García-Lázaro S, Gómez-Sanz FJ, Lorente-Velázquez A. Nonsurgical Procedures for Keratoconus Management. J Ophthalmol. 2017;2017:9707650.
17
Mandathara PS, Stapleton FJ,  Willcox MDP. “Outcome of keratoconus management: review of the past 20 years’ contemporary treatment modalities”. Eye Contact Lens. 2017;43:141-154.
18
Bilgin LK, Yilmaz S, Araz B, Yuksel SB, Sezen T. 30 years of contact lens prescribing for keratoconic patients in Turkey. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2009;32:16-21.
19
Dorronsoro C, Barbero S, Llorente L, Marcos S. On-Eye Measurement of Optical Performance of Rigid Gas Permeable Contact Lenses Based on Ocular and Corneal Aberrometry. Optom Vis Sci. 2003;80:115-125.
20
Negishi K, Kumanomıdo T, Utsumı Y, Tsubota K. Effect of Higher-Order Aberrations on Visual Function in Keratoconic Eyes with a Rigid Gas Permeable Contact Lens. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:924-929.
21
Barnett M, Mannis MJ. Contact lenses in the management of keratoconus. Cornea. 2011;30:1510-1516.
22
Lunardi LH, Arroyo D, Andrade Sobrinho MV, Lipener C, Rosa JM. Descriptive analysis of the type and design of contact lenses fitted according to keratoconus severity and morphology. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2016;79:82-84.
23
Hwang JS, Lee JH, Wee WR, Kim MK. Effects of multicurve RGP contact lens use on topographic changes in keratoconus. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2010;24:201-206.
24
Hu CY, Tung HC. Managing keratoconus with reverse-geometry and dual-geometry contact lenses: a case report. Eye  Contact Lens. 2008;34:71-75.
25
Betts AM, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. Visual performance and comfort with the Rose K lens for keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79:493-501.
26
Ozkurt YB, Sengor T, Kurna S, Evciman T, Acikgoz S, Haboğlu M, Aki S. Rose K contact lens fitting for keratoconus. Int Ophthalmol. 2008;28:395-398.
27
Leung KKY. RGP fitting philosophies for keratoconus. Clin Exp Optom. 1999;82:230-235.
28
Downie LE, Lindsay RG. Contact lens management of keratoconus. Clin Exp Optom. 2015;98:299-311.
29
Sengor T, Kurna SA, Ozbay N, Ertek S, Aki S, Altun A. Contact lens-related dry eye and ocular surface changes with mapping technique in long-term soft silicone hydrogel contact lens wearers. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2012;22:17-23.
30
Pisella PJ, Malet F, Lejeune S, Brignole F, Debbasch C, Bara J, Rat P, Colin J, Baudouin C. Ocular surface changes induced by contact lens wear. Cornea. 2001;20:820-825.
31
Moon JW, Shin KC, Lee HJ, Wee WR, Lee JH, Kim MK. The effect of contact lens wear on the ocular surface changes in keratoconus. Eye  Contact Lens. 2006;32:96-101.
32
Lema I, Duran JA, Ruiz C, Diez-Feijoo E, Acera A, Merayo J. Inflammatory response to contact lenses in patients with keratoconus compared with myopic subjects. Cornea. 2008;27:758-763.
33
Fodor M, Kolozsvári BL, Petrovski G, Kettesy BA, Gogolák P, Rajnavölgyi E, Ujhelyi B, Módis L, Petrovski BE, Szima GZ, Berta A, Facskó A. Effect of contact lens wear on the release of tear mediators in keratoconus. Eye  Contact Lens. 2013;39:147-152.
34
Wisse RP, Kuiper JJ, Gans R, Imhof S, Radstake TR, Van der Lelij A. Ocul Surf. Cytokine Expression in Keratoconus and its Corneal Microenvironment: A Systematic Review. 2015;13:272-283.
35
Bitirgen G, Ozkagnici A, Malik RA, Oltulu R. Evaluation of contact lens-induced changes in keratoconic corneas using in vivo confocal microscopy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:5385-5391.
36
Bozkurt B, Yılmaz M, Meşen A, Kamış Ü, Ekinci Köktekir B, Okudan S. Correlation of Corneal Endothelial Cell Density with Corneal Tomographic Parameters in Eyes with Keratoconus. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2017;47:255-226.
37
Erie JC, Patel SV, McLaren JW, Nau CB, Hodge DO, Bourne WM. Keratocyte density in keratoconus. A confocal microscopy study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134:689-695.
38
Shokrollahzadeh F, Hashemi H, Jafarzadehpur E, Mirzajani A, Khabazkhoob  M, Yekta A, Asgari S. Corneal aberration changes after rigid gas permeable contact lens wear in keratokonic patients. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2016;28:194-198.
39
Hwang JS, Lee JH, Wee WR, Kim MK. Effects of multicurve RGP contact lens use on topographic changes in keratoconus. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2010;24:201-206.
40
Jinabhai A, Radhakrishnan H, Tromans C, O’Donnell C. Visual performance and optical quality with soft lenses in keratoconus patients”. Ophthalmic  Physiol Opt. 2012;32:100-116.
41
Sultan P, Dogan C, Iskeleli G. A retrospective analysis of vision correction and safety in keratoconus patients wearing Toris K soft contact lenses. Int Ophthalmol. 2016;36:799-805.
42
Gumus K, Kahraman N. A new fitting approach for providing adequate comfort and visual performance in keratoconus: soft HydroCone (Toris K) lenses. Eye  Contact Lens. 2016;42:225-230.
43
Yildiz EH, Erdurmus M, Elibol ES, Acar B, Vural ET. Contact lens impact on quality of life in keratoconus patients: rigid gas permeable versus soft silicone-hydrogel keratoconus lenses. Int J Ophthalmol. 2015;8:1074-1077.
44
Altun A, Kurna SA, Sengor T, Altun G, Olcaysu O, Simsek MH. Success of hydrocone (TORIS-K) soft contact lens for keratoconus and traumatic keratopathy. Pak J Med Sci. 2015;31:995-998.
45
Carballo-Alvarez J, Puell MC, Cuina R, Diaz-Valle D, Vazquez JM, Benitez-Del-Castillo JM. Soft contact lens fitting after intrastromal corneal ring segment implantation to treat keratoconus. Cont Lens  Anterior Eye. 2014;37:377-381.
46
Fernandez-Velazquez FJ, Fernandez-Fidalgo MJ. Feasibility of custom-made hydrogel contact lenses in keratoconus with previous implantation of intracorneal ring segments. Cont Lens  Anterior Eye. 2015;38:351-356.
47
Alió JL, Shabayek MH. Corneal higher order aberrations: a method to grade keratoconus”. J Refract Surg. 2006;22:539-545.
48
Kosaki R, Maeda N, Bessho K, Hori Y, Nishida K, Suzaki A, Hirohara Y, Mihashi T, Fujikado T, Tano Y. Magnitude and orientation of Zernike terms in patients with keratoconus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:3062-3068.
49
Hashemi H, Beiranvand A, Yekta A, Maleki A, Yazdani N, Khabazkhoobd M. Pentacam top indices for diagnosing subclinical and definite keratoconus. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2016;28:21-26.
50
Negishi K, Kumanomido T, Utsumi Y, Tsubota K. Effect of higher-order aberrations on visual function in keratoconic eyes with a rigid gas permeable contact lens. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:924-929.
51
Jinabhai A, O’Donnell C, Tromans C, Radhakrishnan H. Optical quality and visual performance with customised soft contact lenses for keratoconus. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014;34:528-539.
52
Suzaki A, Maeda N, Fuchihata M, Koh S, Nishida K, Fujikado T. Visual performance and optical quality of standardized asymmetric soft contact lenses in patients with keratoconus. Invest Ophthalmol  Vis Sci. 2017;58:2899-2905.
53
Polse KA, Decker MR, Sarver MD. Soft and hard contact lenses worn in combination. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1977;54:660-665.
54
Alemany Al, Meijome JMG, Almedia JB, Parafita MA, Refojo MF. Oxygen transmissibility of piggyback systems with conventional soft and silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Cornea. 2006;25:214-219.
55
Sengor T, Kurna SA, Akı S, Ozkurt Y. High Dk piggyback contact lens system for contact lens-intolerant keratoconus patients. Clin Ophthalmol. 2011;5:331-335.
56
O’Donnell C, Maldonado-Codina C. A hyper-Dk piggyback contact lens system for keratoconus. Eye  Contact Lens. 2004;30:44-48.
57
Smith KA, Carrell JD. High Dk piggybckcontact lenses over intacs for keratoconus: a case report. Eye  Contact Lens 2008;34:238-241.
58
Wietharn BE, Driebe WT. Fitting contact lenses for visual rehabilitation after penetrating keratoplasty. Eye Contact Lens. 2004;30:31-33.
59
Andreanos KD., Hashemi K, Petrelli M, Droutsas K, Georgalas I, Kymionis GD. Keratoconus Treatment Algorithm. Ophthalmol Ther. 2017;6:245-262.
60
Nau AC. A comparison of Synerg Eyes versus traditional rigid gas permeable lens designs for patients with irregular corneas. Eye Contact Lens. 2008; 34:198-200.
61
Ozkurt Y, Oral Y, Karaman A, Ozgur O, Dogan OK. A retrospective case series: use of SoftPerm contact lenses in patients with keratoconus. Eye Contact Lens. 2007;33:103-105.
62
Downie LE, Lindsay RG. Contact lens management of keratoconus. Clin Exp Optom. 2015;98:299-311.
63
Abdalla YF, Elsahn AF, K. M. Hammersmith KM, Cohen EJ. Synerg Eyes lenses for keratoconus. Cornea. 2010;29:5-8.
64
Hashemi H, Shaygan N, Asgari S, Rezvan F, Asgari S. ClearKone-SynergEyes or rigid gas-permeable contact lens in keratoconic patients: a clinical decision. Eye Contact Lens. 2014;40:95-98.
65
Fernandez-Velazquez FJ. Severe epithelial edema in Clear-Kone SynergEyes contact lens wear for keratoconus. Eye Contact Lens. 2011;37:381-385.
66
Michaud L, Lipson M, Kramer E, Walker M. The official guide to scleral lens terminology. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2019 Sep 24. pii: S1367-0484 (19)30219-X.
67
Jacobs DS. Update on scleral lenses. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008;19:298-301.
68
Koppen C, Kreps EO, Anthonissen L, Hoey MV, Dhubhghaill SN, Vermeulen L. Scleral lenses reduce the need for corneal transplants in severe Keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;185:43-47.
69
DeLoss KS, Fatteh NH, Hood CT. Prosthetic Replacement of the Ocular Surface Ecosystem (PROSE) scleral device compared to keratoplasty for the treatment of corneal ectasia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158:974-982.
70
Segal O, Barkana Y, Hourovitz D, Behrman S, Kamun Y, Avni I, Zadok D. Scleralcontact lenses may help where other modalities fail. Cornea. 2003;22:308-310.
71
Pullum KW. Scleral contact lenses: indications and current clinical methods,Optometry Today. 2006:26-32.
72
Alipour F, Kheirkhah A, Jabarvand Behrouz M. Use of mini scleral contact lenses in moderate to severe dry eye. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2012;35:272-276.
73
Bergmanson JP, Walker MK, Johnson LA. Assessing Scleral Contact Lens Satisfaction in a Keratoconus Population. Optom Vis Sci. 2016;93:855-860.
74
Fadel D. Modern scleral lenses: Mini versus large. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2017;40:200-207.
75
Michaud, Sclerals for normal corneas. Beyond irregular: scleral lenses for everyday use, Cont. Lens Spectr. 2015;30:30-36.
76
Rathi VM, Mandathara PS, Taneja M, Dumpati S, Sangwan VS. Scleral lens for keratoconus: technology update. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:2013-2018.
77
Visser ES, Visser R, Van Lier HJ. Advantages of toric scleral lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83:233-236.
78
Schornack MM, Patel SV. Relationship between corneal topographic indices and scleral lens base curve. Eye Contact Lens. 2010;36:330-333.
79
Fernández-Velázquez FJ. Performance and predictability of a new large diameter contact lens design in keratoconic corneae. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2019;42:289-294.
80
Vincent SJ, Alonso-Caneiro D, Collins MJ. Optical coherence tomography and scleral contact lenses: clinical and research applications. Clin Exp Optom. 2019;102:224-241.
81
Bergamnson JPG, Ezekiel DF, van der Worp E. Scleral contact lenses and Hypoxia. Theory versus practice, Cont. Lens Anterior Eye. 2015;38:145-147.
82
Pullum KW, Stapleton FJ. Scleral lens induced corneal swelling: what effect of varying Dk and lens thickness? CLAO J. 1997;23:259-263.
83
Compan V,  Oliveira C, Aguilella-Arzo M, Mollá S, Peixoto-de-Matos SC, González Méijome JM. Oxygen diffusion and edema with modern scleral rigid gas permeable contact lenses. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55:6421-6429.
84
Rosenthal P, Croteau A. Fluid-ventilated,gas-permeablescleralcontact lens is an effective option for managing severe ocular surface disease and many corneal disorders that would otherwise require penetrating keratoplasty. Eye Contact Lens. 2005;31:130-134.
85
Marsack JD, Ravikumar A, Nguyen C, Ticak A, Koenig DE, Elswick JD, Applegate RA. Wavefront-guided scleral lens correction in keratoconus. Optometry Vision Sci. 2014;91:1221-1230.
86
Gumus K, Gire A, Pflugfelder SC. The impact of the Boston ocular surface prosthesis on wavefront higher-order aberrations. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151:682-690.e2.
87
Hussoin T, Le HG, Carrasquillo KG, Johns L, Rosenthal P, Jacobs DS. The effect of optic asphericity on visual rehabilitation of corneal ectasia with a prosthetic device. Eye Contact Lens. 2012;38:300-305.
88
Vincent SJ, Fadel D. Optical considerations for scleral contact lenses: A review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2019;42:598-613.