mirage

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

ABACUS/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Romero Jimenez, Miguel
dc.contributor.author Santodomingo Rubido, Jacinto
dc.contributor.author González Méijome, José Manuel
dc.contributor.author Flores Rodriguez, Patricia
dc.contributor.author Villa Collar, César
dc.date.accessioned 2015-05-27T09:28:51Z
dc.date.available 2015-05-27T09:28:51Z
dc.date.issued 2015
dc.identifier.citation Romero-Jiménez, M., Santodomingo-Rubido, J., González-Meijóme, J. M., Flores-Rodriguez, P., & Villa-Collar, C. (2015). Which soft lens power is better for piggyback in keratoconus? Part II. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye, 38(1), 48-53. spa
dc.identifier.issn 13670484
dc.identifier.issn 14765411
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/11268/3960
dc.description.abstract 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. Copyright © 2014 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. spa
dc.language.iso eng spa
dc.subject.other Queratocono spa
dc.subject.other Queratometría spa
dc.title Which soft lens power is better for piggyback in keratoconus? Part II spa
dc.type article spa
dc.description.impact 1.752 JCR (2015) Q3, 29/56 Ophtalmology spa
dc.identifier.doi 10.1016/j.clae.2014.09.012
dc.rights.accessRights closedAccess spa
dc.subject.uem Lentes de contacto spa
dc.subject.uem Cornea spa
dc.subject.unesco Óptica spa
dc.description.filiation UEM spa
dc.peerreviewed Si spa


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record