Patient ocular conditions and clinical outcomes using a PROSE scleral device

• Published in: Contact lens & anterior eye 2013-08, Vol.36 (4), p.159-163
• Main Authors: Dimit, Ryan, Gire, Anisa, Pflugfelder, Stephen C, Bergmanson, Jan P.G
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Contact Lenses; Dry eye; Equipment Failure Analysis; Humans; Keratoconus; Middle Aged; Ophthalmology; Prosthesis Design; Questionnaire; Refractive Errors - diagnosis; Refractive Errors - rehabilitation; Refractive Surgical Procedures - instrumentation; Refractive Surgical Procedures - methods; Retrospective Studies; Sclera - surgery; Scleral contact lenses; Treatment Outcome; Vision Disorders - diagnosis; Vision Disorders - rehabilitation; Vision Disorders - surgery; Visual Acuity; Visual function
• ISSN: 1367-0484; 1476-5411
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2013.02.004

Abstract Purpose To determine the type and distribution of ocular conditions cared for in a clinic dedicated to scleral devices and to report the clinical outcomes afforded by this approach. Methods Fifty-one charts of patients fitted unilaterally or bilaterally with a scleral device (Prosthetic Replacement of the Ocular Surface Ecosystem – PROSE) in a two year period were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, ocular diagnoses, associated systemic conditions, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) before and after fitting, Visual Function Questionnaire score (VFQ-25), and ocular surface disease index (OSDI) score were collected. Results All 51 patients were successfully wearing the PROSE device for a period of anywhere from weeks to years. The most common reasons for fitting were to relieve symptoms of moderate to severe dry eye syndrome (“DES”, n = 25), management of refractive problems (“refractive”, n = 23) with keratoconus being the most common ( n = 14), and to manage other anomalies (“other”, n = 3). Best corrected visual acuity (logMAR) improved with the wearing of the PROSE device for both the DES (17 letters) and the refractive group (10 letters), but not the “other” group. No serious complications were recorded for any of the patients. Conclusions The PROSE device is a useful option not only for the management of ocular surface disease and optical imperfections, but also for other ophthalmic conditions. Moderate to severe dry eye was the most common anomaly managed, followed by eyes with irregular corneal astigmatism. DES and refractive patients experienced improvement in visual acuity with wearing of the PROSE device.