4.4 Article

Rigid Gas-Permeable Contact Lenses for Visual Rehabilitation of Traumatized Eyes in Children

Journal

CORNEA
Volume 33, Issue 5, Pages 486-489

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000103

Keywords

pediatric ocular trauma; rigid gas-permeable contact lenses; corneal scar

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the usefulness and tolerance of rigid gas-permeable (RGP) contact lenses in the visual rehabilitation of children postocular trauma. Methods: In this retrospective case series, children below 15 years of age with ocular trauma were included. The best-corrected visual acuity with RGP contact lenses was compared with that of spectacle correction. The factors affecting visual improvement were analyzed, and problems caused by contact lens use were identified. Results: Twelve eyes of 12 boys were included. The mean best-corrected visual acuity was 0.81 +/- 0.29 (LogMar equivalent) with spectacles and 0.47 +/- 0.27 (LogMar equivalent) with contact lenses (P < 0.001). Seven of the 12 eyes achieved a >2 line increase in visual acuity with contact lens correction as compared with that using spectacle correction. The mean astigmatism in eyes that achieved this improvement in vision was 5.45 +/- 1.6 diopters, whereas the mean astigmatism in the eyes that did not improve was 2.6 +/- 1.2 diopters, which was statistically significant (P = 0.009). No other factors (age, corneal scar location/density, grade/zone of injury, lens status, and occlusion) seemed to affect visual improvement with contact lenses. The mean follow-up duration was about 15 months during which 91% of the patients continued their contact lens usage. Conclusions: RGP contact lenses offer a useful refractive treatment alternative in traumatized eyes of children. Eyes with high degrees of astigmatism were found to benefit the most. RGP contact lenses were found to be well tolerated in this population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available