Fogt, Jennifer Swingle

Background/Objectives: As scleral lens (SL) use continues to expand, particularly for medically necessary management of corneal irregularity and ocular surface disease, it is important to determine if wear of these lenses is associated with eyelid disease. This study evaluated habitual SL wearers for meibomian gland obstruction, meibum quality, and signs of lid margin inflammation. Methods: Eligible participants wore scleral lenses in one or both eyes for any indication and had been wearing their current lens design(s) for at least six months, with habitual wear of ≥5 h per day, six days per week. Eyelid inflammation metrics were specifically assessed. Results: Forty-nine scleral lens wearers (32 females) were enrolled. Upper lid wiper epitheliopathy (LWE) was present in 21 eyes (43%), and lower LWE was present in 15 eyes (31%). Thirty-nine eyes (80%) had expressible meibomian glands. Eyes with no expressible meibum were significantly higher in ocular surface disease (39%, 7/18) than corneal irregularity (11%, 3/27) (p = 0.03). Lid margin telangiectasia was present in wearers with ocular surface disease (61%, 11/18) and corneal irregularity (19%, 5/26) (p = 0.005). Conclusions: Eyelid disease was common among habitual scleral wearers regardless of indication for lens use. Eyes with ocular surface disease demonstrated a higher prevalence of meibomian gland obstruction and lid margin telangiectasia compared to those with corneal irregularity.

Abstract Introduction Midday fogging is a complication of scleral lens (SL) wear that interrupts clear vision during the course of wear. SLs can be made with a variety of gas permeable materials, sizes and surface treatments, and various solutions are available for storing the lenses and for filling them before application on the eye. Many of these factors have been implicated as possible contributors to midday fogging. This study explored the lens and solution properties in habitual SL wearers with and without midday fogging. Methods In this prospective study, 48 habitual SL wearers were evaluated and asked to report whether they experienced midday fogging and if they removed their lenses during the day. They completed the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), which is a validated tool for dry eye assessment. Lens parameters (material, coatings and diameter) and lens storage and filling solutions were documented. Backward elimination of regression terms evaluated the lens and solution properties in those with and without fogging. OSDI scores were compared using the Mann–Whitney analysis. Results Collectively, the lens properties and solutions accounted for 27.7% of the variance related to midday fogging. None of the factors alone had a significant impact upon midday fogging. The median (interquartile range) OSDI score for those with fogging [37 (35)] was significantly different from those without fogging [10 (15)], with the scores corresponding to severe dry eye and normal eyes, respectively. Conclusion SL wearers with midday fogging exhibited similar symptoms to patients with severe dry eye. Lens and solution characteristics may play a small role in patients with midday fogging, although changing just a single factor is not likely to impact its presence.

SIGNIFICANCE Scleral lenses (SLs) are increasingly being considered as the initial correction for patients with keratoconus. In this study, keratoconus patients report higher levels of comfort and visual satisfaction with SL compared with corneal gas‐permeable lenses (GPs). PURPOSE This study aimed to compare patient satisfaction and care burden associated with GP and SL for the management of keratoconus. METHODS An electronic survey was distributed by the National Keratoconus Foundation from October 2016 to March 2017. Age at diagnosis, initial and current treatment, lens complications, access to care, lens handling time, and annual out‐of‐pocket treatment costs were collected. Vision, lens comfort, and ease of use satisfaction were rated from 1 to 5. RESULTS A total of 422 responses were received, including 75 bilateral GP and 76 bilateral SL wearers. Scleral lens wearers had greater satisfaction with vision (3.2 ± 1.1 [SL] vs. 2.6 ± 1.1 [GP]; P <. 001) and comfort (3.3 ± 1.0 [SL] vs. 2.2 ± 1.2 [GP]; P <. 001) but similar ease of use satisfaction in both groups (2.8 ± 1.1 [SL] vs. 2.7 ± 1.1 [GP]; P <. 90). Both groups reported issues with cloudy or foggy vision (GP, 63%; SL, 58%) and contact lens discomfort (GP, 77%; SL, 67%). Although GP wearers reported more issues with lens movement or loss (40 [GP] vs. 18% [SL]), they had fewer difficulties with halos (53 vs. 72% [SL]) and lens handling (40%) compared with SL wearers (63%). Gas‐permeable lens (48%) and SL (45%) wearers spend 6 to 10 minutes daily handling their lenses. Sixty percent of GP wearers reported annual out‐of‐pocket cost expenses less than U.S.$1000, whereas only 41% of SL wearers reported the same. CONCLUSIONS Scleral lens wearers with keratoconus report greater satisfaction with vision and comfort than do GP wearers, although both groups reported cloudy vision and lens discomfort.

ABSTRACT SIGNIFICANCE As scleral lens wear becomes more common, understanding the impact of these lenses upon ocular physiology is critically important. Studies on the effect of scleral lens wear upon intraocular pressure (IOP) have used different instruments and have reported conflicting results. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to compare assessment of IOP during scleral lens wear using pneumatonometry and transpalpebral tonometry. METHODS Twenty healthy subjects wore a small‐diameter (15.2 mm) and a large‐diameter (18.0 mm) scleral lens on the right eye, each for 1 hour in randomized order. IOP was assessed with pneumatonometry and transpalpebral tonometry on both eyes before lens application, immediately after lens application, after 1 hour of lens wear, and immediately after lens removal. Paired t test compared mean IOP in the study eye to the control eye. Repeated‐measures ANOVA was performed to take instrumentation, lens diameter, and their interaction into account in an analysis of the change in IOP in the study eye. RESULTS Mean peripheral IOP measured with pneumatonometry was not significantly different from baseline at any subsequent measurement. Measurements with transpalpebral tonometry, however, were significantly different during scleral lens wear immediately after application and after 1 hour of wear with both diameter lenses ( P <. 005), but were not significantly different after either sized lens was removed. Repeated‐measures ANOVA revealed that the instrument used to measure IOP was a significant factor in IOP changes found during lens wear ( P ≤. 001). CONCLUSIONS Assessment of IOP during scleral lens wear varies based upon the instrument that is used. Although further studies are clearly needed to further elucidate this issue, clinicians should continue to monitor optic nerve structure and function in scleral lens wearers, as they do in all patients.