Which soft lens power is better for piggyback in keratoconus? Part II

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Romero-Jimenez, Miguel
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Santodomingo-Rubido, Jacinto, González-Méijome, José Manuel, Flores-Rodriguez, Patricia, Villa-Collar, César
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
Texto Completo: https://hdl.handle.net/1822/39496
Resumo: Purpose: To evaluate how soft lens power affects rigid gas-permeable (RGP) lens power and visual acuity (VA) in piggyback fittings for keratoconus. Methods: Sixteen keratoconus subjects (30 eyes) were included in the study. Piggyback contact lens fittings combining Senofilcon-A soft lenses of −6.00, −3.00, +3.00 and +6.00 D with Rose K2 RGP contact lenses were performed. Corneal topography was taken on the naked eye and over each soft contact lens before fitting RGP lenses. Mean central keratometry, over-refraction, RGP back optic zone radius (BOZR) and estimated final power as well as VA were recorded and analyzed. Results: In comparison to the naked eye, the mean central keratometry flattened with both negative lens powers (p < 0.05 in all cases), did not change with the +3.00 soft lens power (p = 1.0); and steepened with the +6.00 soft lens power (p = 0.02). Rigid gas-permeable over-refraction did not change significantly between different soft lens powers (all p > 0.05). RGP’s BOZR decreased significantly with both positive in comparison with both negative soft lens powers (all p < 0.001), but no significant differences were found among negative- or positive-powers separately (both p > 0.05). Estimated RGP’s final power increased significantly with positive in comparison with negative lens powers (all p < 0.001), but no significant differences were found among negative or positive lens powers separately (both p > 0.05). Visual acuity did not change significantly between the different soft lens powers assessed (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: The use of negative-powered soft lenses in piggyback fitting reduces RGP lens power without impacting VA in keratoconus subjects.
id RCAP_f94e767298b672348f2977cf8cf410a1
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/39496
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository_id_str https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160
spelling Which soft lens power is better for piggyback in keratoconus? Part IIPiggybackContact lensCorneaKeratoconusKeratometryScience & TechnologyPurpose: To evaluate how soft lens power affects rigid gas-permeable (RGP) lens power and visual acuity (VA) in piggyback fittings for keratoconus. Methods: Sixteen keratoconus subjects (30 eyes) were included in the study. Piggyback contact lens fittings combining Senofilcon-A soft lenses of −6.00, −3.00, +3.00 and +6.00 D with Rose K2 RGP contact lenses were performed. Corneal topography was taken on the naked eye and over each soft contact lens before fitting RGP lenses. Mean central keratometry, over-refraction, RGP back optic zone radius (BOZR) and estimated final power as well as VA were recorded and analyzed. Results: In comparison to the naked eye, the mean central keratometry flattened with both negative lens powers (p < 0.05 in all cases), did not change with the +3.00 soft lens power (p = 1.0); and steepened with the +6.00 soft lens power (p = 0.02). Rigid gas-permeable over-refraction did not change significantly between different soft lens powers (all p > 0.05). RGP’s BOZR decreased significantly with both positive in comparison with both negative soft lens powers (all p < 0.001), but no significant differences were found among negative- or positive-powers separately (both p > 0.05). Estimated RGP’s final power increased significantly with positive in comparison with negative lens powers (all p < 0.001), but no significant differences were found among negative or positive lens powers separately (both p > 0.05). Visual acuity did not change significantly between the different soft lens powers assessed (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: The use of negative-powered soft lenses in piggyback fitting reduces RGP lens power without impacting VA in keratoconus subjects.ElsevierUniversidade do MinhoRomero-Jimenez, MiguelSantodomingo-Rubido, JacintoGonzález-Méijome, José ManuelFlores-Rodriguez, PatriciaVilla-Collar, César20152015-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/1822/39496engRomero-Jiménez, Miguel; Santodomingo-Rubido, Jacinto; González-Meijóme, Jose-Manuel; Flores-Rodriguez, Patricia; Villa-Collar, Cesar. Which soft lens power is better for piggyback in keratoconus? Part II, Contact Lens and Anterior Eye, 38, 1, 48-53, 2015.1367-048410.1016/j.clae.2014.09.01225458076The original publication is available at www.ScienceDirect.cominfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAP2025-04-12T05:24:06Zoai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/39496Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-28T16:30:37.560162Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Which soft lens power is better for piggyback in keratoconus? Part II
title Which soft lens power is better for piggyback in keratoconus? Part II
spellingShingle Which soft lens power is better for piggyback in keratoconus? Part II
Romero-Jimenez, Miguel
Piggyback
Contact lens
Cornea
Keratoconus
Keratometry
Science & Technology
title_short Which soft lens power is better for piggyback in keratoconus? Part II
title_full Which soft lens power is better for piggyback in keratoconus? Part II
title_fullStr Which soft lens power is better for piggyback in keratoconus? Part II
title_full_unstemmed Which soft lens power is better for piggyback in keratoconus? Part II
title_sort Which soft lens power is better for piggyback in keratoconus? Part II
author Romero-Jimenez, Miguel
author_facet Romero-Jimenez, Miguel
Santodomingo-Rubido, Jacinto
González-Méijome, José Manuel
Flores-Rodriguez, Patricia
Villa-Collar, César
author_role author
author2 Santodomingo-Rubido, Jacinto
González-Méijome, José Manuel
Flores-Rodriguez, Patricia
Villa-Collar, César
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade do Minho
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Romero-Jimenez, Miguel
Santodomingo-Rubido, Jacinto
González-Méijome, José Manuel
Flores-Rodriguez, Patricia
Villa-Collar, César
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Piggyback
Contact lens
Cornea
Keratoconus
Keratometry
Science & Technology
topic Piggyback
Contact lens
Cornea
Keratoconus
Keratometry
Science & Technology
description Purpose: To evaluate how soft lens power affects rigid gas-permeable (RGP) lens power and visual acuity (VA) in piggyback fittings for keratoconus. Methods: Sixteen keratoconus subjects (30 eyes) were included in the study. Piggyback contact lens fittings combining Senofilcon-A soft lenses of −6.00, −3.00, +3.00 and +6.00 D with Rose K2 RGP contact lenses were performed. Corneal topography was taken on the naked eye and over each soft contact lens before fitting RGP lenses. Mean central keratometry, over-refraction, RGP back optic zone radius (BOZR) and estimated final power as well as VA were recorded and analyzed. Results: In comparison to the naked eye, the mean central keratometry flattened with both negative lens powers (p < 0.05 in all cases), did not change with the +3.00 soft lens power (p = 1.0); and steepened with the +6.00 soft lens power (p = 0.02). Rigid gas-permeable over-refraction did not change significantly between different soft lens powers (all p > 0.05). RGP’s BOZR decreased significantly with both positive in comparison with both negative soft lens powers (all p < 0.001), but no significant differences were found among negative- or positive-powers separately (both p > 0.05). Estimated RGP’s final power increased significantly with positive in comparison with negative lens powers (all p < 0.001), but no significant differences were found among negative or positive lens powers separately (both p > 0.05). Visual acuity did not change significantly between the different soft lens powers assessed (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: The use of negative-powered soft lenses in piggyback fitting reduces RGP lens power without impacting VA in keratoconus subjects.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015
2015-01-01T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/1822/39496
url https://hdl.handle.net/1822/39496
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Romero-Jiménez, Miguel; Santodomingo-Rubido, Jacinto; González-Meijóme, Jose-Manuel; Flores-Rodriguez, Patricia; Villa-Collar, Cesar. Which soft lens power is better for piggyback in keratoconus? Part II, Contact Lens and Anterior Eye, 38, 1, 48-53, 2015.
1367-0484
10.1016/j.clae.2014.09.012
25458076
The original publication is available at www.ScienceDirect.com
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
collection Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv info@rcaap.pt
_version_ 1833595990477635584