Inverted lens provides reverse geometry solution for post laser vision correction (LVC) corneas.
Contact lens
Laser vision correction
Prolate cornea
Residual refraction
Reverse geometry
Journal
American journal of ophthalmology case reports
ISSN: 2451-9936
Titre abrégé: Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101679941
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
31
05
2021
revised:
26
12
2021
accepted:
23
01
2022
entrez:
7
2
2022
pubmed:
8
2
2022
medline:
8
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Many patients require optical correction post-laser vision correction (LVC). While mildly irregular corneal topographic patterns or asymmetry can sometimes be treated with conventional soft lenses, often this proves inadequate. This article introduces a novel technique to provide visual improvement and comfort for these patients. An inverted senofilcon A (Acuvue Oasys®, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care) lens (off-label)was inserted on a patient's eyes that reported discomfort with his current soft contact lenses, which provided improved centration as was seen with a slit lamp and high molecular fluorescein through a yellow filter. The patient achieved a visual acuity of 6/6+ in each eye and reported that the vision did not fluctuate. The post-lens tear film decreased to 35micron versus 43micron in the conventional position, as shown in OCT. The patient reported that he wore the lenses 9 hours a day. His Dry Eye Questionnaire-8 (CLDEQ-8) score decreased from 22 to 15 when wearing the lenses in the inverted position. This case demonstrates that post-laser vision correction patients with minimal asymmetric topography within the treated zone requiring refractive correction may be helped using an inverted conventional soft frequent replacement lens.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35128171
doi: 10.1016/j.ajoc.2022.101350
pii: S2451-9936(22)00096-2
pmc: PMC8810359
doi:
Types de publication
Case Reports
Langues
eng
Pagination
101350Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors of this manuscript do not have any conflict of interest to declare.
Références
Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2005 Jan-Feb;68(1):93-7
pubmed: 15824811
Eye Contact Lens. 2017 Jan;43(1):46-50
pubmed: 26709983
Open Ophthalmol J. 2018 Jul 23;12:214-225
pubmed: 30123384
J Refract Surg. 2009 May;25(5):451-8
pubmed: 19507798
Open Ophthalmol J. 2018 Jul 23;12:143-153
pubmed: 30123379
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005 Jan;31(1):30-8
pubmed: 15721694
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020 Aug;46(8):1189-1197
pubmed: 32541369
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2020 May;30(3):446-454
pubmed: 30845834
Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2007 May;30(2):84-93
pubmed: 17329148
J Refract Surg. 2006 Jan-Feb;22(1):19-27
pubmed: 16447932
Optom Vis Sci. 2017 Feb;94(2):183-196
pubmed: 27748699
J Refract Surg. 2006 Feb;22(2):178-86
pubmed: 16523838
Ophthalmology. 1997 Nov;104(11):1948-50; discussion 1950-1
pubmed: 9373131
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002 Oct;28(10):1750-7
pubmed: 12388023
Open Ophthalmol J. 2018 May 18;12:63-71
pubmed: 29872485
Ophthalmology. 2021 Nov;128(11):e142-e152
pubmed: 33221325
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004 Mar;30(3):653-7
pubmed: 15050263
Optom Vis Sci. 2016 Aug;93(8):987-96
pubmed: 27232902
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Jun 09;52(7):4091-7
pubmed: 21372023
Am J Ophthalmol. 2002 May;133(5):607-12
pubmed: 11992856
J Refract Surg. 2005 Nov-Dec;21(6):753-6
pubmed: 16329369
Int J Ophthalmol. 2018 Mar 18;11(3):470-477
pubmed: 29600182