BACKGROUND
Patient CT presented for contact lens consultation. This 33 year old chef had been wearing GP lenses for several years and
was finding the latest pair (about 4 months old) to be uncomfortable after 6-7 hours of wear. The lenses had been fit by another
practitioner after one lens had been lost. After dispensing, no follow-up visit was scheduled.
Visual Acuities (with contact lenses):
OD: 20/25
OS: 20/25
Over-Refraction:
OD: Plano 20/25
OS: -0.25DS 20/20-
Slit Lamp Evaluation (with contact lenses):
Both lenses had a slightly inferior position in primary gaze. Both lenses moved excessively and only briefly interacted with the
lids on blinking. Fluorescein evaluation showed slight apical bearing OU, with slightly excessive mid-peripheral and peripheral clearance OU.
Slit Lamp Evaluation (without contact lenses):
Each cornea had mild, central superficial punctate keratitis (SPK), with the right cornea slightly worse than the left. The
remainder of the external ocular health was normal.
Current Lens Parameters:
BCR(mm)
Power(D) OAD(mm)
CT(mm) Edge
OD:
8.05
+3.25
8.8
.28
-
lenticular
OS:
8.00
+2.75
8.8
.27
- lenticular
TEST PROCEDURES, FITTING/REFITTING, DESIGN & ORDERING
Manifest Refraction:
OD: +3.50 - 1.25 x
165 20/25-
OS: +3.00 - 1.00 x
023 20/20-
Keratometry:
OD: 42.00 @ 170;
43.50 @ 080 (slight mire distortion)
OS: 42.25 @ 010; 43.50 @ 100 (slight mire
distortion)
Anatomical Measurements:
Pupil Diameter (room
illumination): 4.5mm
Upper Lid Position: Overlaps
superior limbus by approx. 2mm
Lower Lid Position: Tangent to lower
limbus
Vertical Fissure Size: 11.5mm
Diagnostic Lenses:
OD
OS
Material:
Boston
EO Boston EO
BCR:
7.95mm
7.95mm
OAD/OZD:
9.5mm
9.5mm
Power
:
+2.00D
+2.00D
SCR/W:
10.00/.3mm 10.00/.3mm
PCR/W:
12.00/.3mm 12.00/.3mm
Center Thickness:
.18mm .18mm
Edge:
Minus
Lenticular OU
Edge
Thickness:
0.10mm 0.10mm
After 5 minutes of settling, comfort was very good OU.
Visual Acuities (with contact lenses):
OD: 20/25
OS: 20/25
Over-Refraction:
OD: +1.00DS
20/25
OS: -+0.75DS 20/20-
Slit Lamp Evaluation (with contact lenses):
Each lens had a superior central ride with lid attachment. Movement was good in all positions of gaze. Fluorescein showed slight
apical clearance OD and alignment OS. There was good mid-peripheral and peripheral clearance OU. The OD lens base
curve radius needed to be 0.25mm flatter and the lenses ordered were as follows:
OD
OS
Material:
Boston
XO Boston XO
BCR:
8.00mm
7.95mm
OAD/OZD:
9.5/8.3mm 9.5/8.3mm
Power :
+3.25D
+2.75D
SCR/W:
10.00/.3mm 10.00/.3mm
PCR/W:
12.00/.3mm 12.00/.3mm
Center Thickness:
.19mm
.18mm
Edge:
Minus
Lenticular OU
Edge
Thickness:
0.10mm
0.10mm
PATIENT CONSULTATION AND EDUCATION
The need to change the way the lenses fit in order to obtain good comfort was discussed with the patient. The
issues of lens thickness, lens diameter, and the base curve-to-cornea fitting relationship were presented in lay terms, which the patient
appreciated. The patient was advised to wear her glasses until the new lenses arrived in order to allow the SPK to resolve. The
lenses were ordered and a dispensing visit scheduled for one week. At dispensing the lenses were allowed to settle for 5-10
minutes. They had been cleaned and soaked after arriving from the laboratory and being verified/inspected.
Visual Acuities (with contact lenses):
OD: 20/20
OS: 20/20
Slit Lamp Evaluation (with contact lenses):
Each lens had a superior central position with slight lid attachment. Movement was good in all positions of
gaze. Fluorescein evaluation showed central alignment with good clearance in the mid-peripheral and peripheral areas.
The patient was advised to start with no more than 6 hours of wear on this day, and to gradually increase her wear time by about 2 hours per
day until reaching 12-14 hours of wear daily.
FOLLOW-UP CARE/FINAL OUTCOME
CT returned in 10 days for follow-up. She eported good comfort all day long with an ability to wear the GP
lenses 14 hours per day. Vision was sharp with the lenses and there was no difficulty with spectacle blur after lens removal.
Visual Acuities (with contact lenses):
OD: 20/20
OS: 20/20
Over-Refraction:
OD: Plano 20/20
OS: Plano
20/20
Slit Lamp Evaluation (with contact lenses):
Each lens positioned in a lid attached, superior central position. Movement was good in all POG. Fluorescein
showed central alignment and good mid-peripheral and peripheral clearance.
There was an absence of SPK. This patient continues to do well.
DISCUSSION/ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
There are a number of reasons that this patient's lenses were uncomfortable at first
presentation. One was the slightly flat fitting relationship noted on fluorescein evaluation. The previous practitioner
had apparently fit his lenses on-K, which did not work in the long run for this patient.
Also, the lens diameter was too small,cpreventing any lid attachment (even with a minus carrier lenticular). Lid attachment is very important for both good
long-term comfort and physiologic response. A lens that rides low tends to create problems with dessication since the lens does not
move sufficiently. It can also lead to lid awareness/irritation since the lid must travel over the lens edge with each blink, with in turn
can lead to partial blinking which further dries the surface of the lens and the eye (1). A larger lens allows the upper lid to hold
the lens up, which promotes better comfort and allows for a better physiologic outcome because the lens moves more freely and stays wetter better.
Finally, the central lens thickness of the original lenses seemed high. Thick lenses have a more forward center
of gravity which creates more of a tendency for the lens to drop. Thinner lenses allow the center of gravity to more
posteriorly, which aids centration and allows the upper lid to engage the lenticular more efficiently. These little things can mean
the difference between a happy patient who refers others to the practice and one who never returns and advises others to go elsewhere.
Other options for this patient were soft toric lenses, spectacles or refractive surgery. As a chef, spectacles were
not practical due to the hot, greasy working conditions in the kitchen. The patient had tried soft lenses years before and
found the vision to be unacceptable, and the lenses tore frequently. Also, the care system was cumbersome and
expensive. Due to this patient's refractive error, she had been told she would not be a good candidate for various
procedures, and had little interest.
REFERENCES
1) Bennett ES. Lens Design, Fitting, and Evaluation. In Bennett ES, Hom MM. Manual of Gas
Permeable Contact Lenses, 2nd ed., Elsevier Science, St. Louis, MO, 2004, 91-113.
Back to Table of Contents
