International Journal of Keratoconus and Ectatic Corneal Diseases

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2019 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparison of Rigid Gas-permeable Contact Lenses with Soft Hydrogel Contact Lens in Keratoconus and their Impact on Quality of Life

Sonam Yangzes, Amit Gupta, Anchal Thakur, Jagat Ram

Keywords : Kerasoft, Keratoconus, Quality of life, Rose K, Silicone hydrogel

Citation Information : Yangzes S, Gupta A, Thakur A, Ram J. Comparison of Rigid Gas-permeable Contact Lenses with Soft Hydrogel Contact Lens in Keratoconus and their Impact on Quality of Life. Int J Kerat Ect Cor Dis 2019; 8 (1):7-11.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10025-1178

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of rigid gas-permeable (RGP) lens and soft hydrogel lens in patients with keratoconus and to assess their impact on quality of life (QoL). Setting: Tertiary care referral center. Materials and methods: A randomized, comparative, clinical interventional trial was conducted in patients with keratoconus. From July 2014 to June 2017, patients were enrolled for this study and were fitted with RGP contact lens (CL) (RoseK© Menicon Limited) or silicone hydrogel lens (Kerasoft© International Limited). The two groups were compared in terms of best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), best CL corrected visual acuity (BCLCVA), corneal topography, Schirmer\'s test, and contrast sensitivity. Quality of life was assessed by asking the patients to fill a self-reported questionnaire. Results: Forty eyes were enrolled and randomized to the Rose-K and Kerasoft groups. The two groups were comparable with respect to the mean patient age, sex, and mean K values. A statistically significant improvement was observed in BCLCVA in both groups at 6 months (p < 0.01). The Kerasoft group had a better comfort score at 6 months’ follow-up compared to Rose K (p < 0.05). In terms of contrast sensitivity, Rose K group fared better than Kerasoft group (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Both Kerasoft and Rose K groups showed improvement in visual acuity. Kerasoft lens users had better comfort and also required less number of trials before final fit. Rose K lens provided a better contrast sensitivity. We conclude that Kerasoft lens can be considered as a good alternative for optical correction of corneal astigmatism in patients with keratoconus, not tolerating RGP lenses.


PDF Share
  1. Zadnik K, Barr JT, Gordon MO, et al. Biomicroscopic signs and disease severity in keratoconus. Cornea 1996;15(2):139–146. DOI: 10.1097/00003226-199603000-00006.
  2. Krachmer JH, Feder RS, Belin MW. Keratoconus and related noninflammatory corneal thinning disorders. Surv Ophthalmol 1984;28(4):293–322. DOI: 10.1016/0039-6257(84)90094-8.
  3. Rabinowitz YS. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol 1998;42(4):297–319. DOI: 10.1016/s0039-6257(97)00119-7.
  4. Rabinowitz YS, Garbus JJ, Garbus C, et al. Contact lens selection for keratoconus using a computer assisted videophotokeratoscope. CLAO J 1991;17(2):88–93.
  5. Fernandez-Velazquez FJ. Kerasoft IC compared to Rose-K in management of corneal ectasias. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 2012;35(4):175–179. DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2012.02.005.
  6. Gonzallez-Meijome JM, Jorge J, de Ameida JB, et al. Soft contact lens for keratoconus: case report. Eye Contact Lens 2006;32(3):143–147. DOI: 10.1097/01.icl.0000179707.85290.f4.
  7. Pelli DG, Robson JG, Wilkins AJ. The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vision Sci 1988;2:187–199.
  8. Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliot DB. The contact lens impact on quality of life (CLIQ) questionnaire: development and validation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47(7):2789–2796. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.05-0933.
  9. Fatima T, Acharya MC, Mathur U, et al. Demographic profile and visual rehabilitation of patients with keratoconus attending contact lens clinic at a tertiary eye care centre. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 2010;33(1):19–22. DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2009.09.004.
  10. Ozkurt YB, Sengor T, Kurna S, et al. Rose K contact lens fitting for keratoconus. Int Ophthalmol 2008;28(6):395–398. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-007-9156-4.
  11. Hwang JS, Lee JH, Wee WR, et al. Effects of multicurve RGP contact lens use on topographic changes in keratoconus. Korean J Ophthalmol 2010;24(4):201–206. DOI: 10.3341/kjo.2010.24.4.201.
  12. Jain AK, Sukhija J. Rose-K contact lens for keratoconus. Indian J Ophthalmol 2007;55(2):121–125. DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.30706.
  13. Betts AM, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. Visual performance and comfort with the Rose K lens for keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci 2002;79(8):493–501. DOI: 10.1097/00006324-200208000-00011.
  14. Erdurmus M, Yildiz EH, Abdalla YF, et al. Contact lens related quality of life in patient with keratoconus. Eye and Contact Lens 2009;35(3):123–127. DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e31819d1dd0.
  15. Yildiz HE, Erdurmus M, Elibol ES, et al. Contact lens impact on quality of life in keratoconus patients: rigid gas permeable versus soft silicone hydrogel keratoconus lenses. Int J Ophthalmol 2015;8(5):1074–1077. DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.38.
  16. Gupta R, Sinha R, Singh P, et al. Rose K versus soper contact lens in keratoconus: arandomized comparative trial. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2014;21(1):50–55. DOI: 10.4103/0974-9233. 124095.
  17. Sudharman PM, Rathi V, Dumapati S, et al. Lenses for keratoconus- an Indian experience. Eye Contact Lens 2010;4(4):220–222. DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e3181e5cd0b.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.