Qualitative Assessment of Scleral Shape Patterns Using a New Wide Field Ocular Surface Elevation Topographer The SSSG Study

Main Article Content

Gregory DeNaeyer
Donald Sanders
Eef van der Worp
Jason Jedlicka
Langis Michaud
Sheila Morrison

Keywords

WIDE FIELD OCULAR SURFACE ELEVATION TOPOGRAPHER, The SSSG Study, SCLERAL SHAPE PATTERNS

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Objective was to examine new findings regarding conjunctival/scleral shape mapped with a novel wide field elevation topography device and software, to propose a new classification system for scleral shape.


Methods: The Scleral Shape Study Group (SSSG) collaborated on this research. Data was collected from 152 eyes of prospective scleral lens patients utilizing a new topography device and software specifically designed to measure and map the sclera out to as much as 22 mm. Circumferential scleral plots of sagittal height vs. meridian at 14, 15 and 16mm diameters from the corneal center were generated for each eye. Scleral shape patterns were reviewed in all cases and classified according to recurring characteristics.


Results: Twelve eyes were excluded from the analysis due to incomplete data. Of the remaining 140 eyes, 8 (5.7%), of the plots were primarily spherical (Group 1) and 40 (28.6%) were primarily regularly toric, largely conforming to a toric (Sin2) curve with approximately 180° periodicity or interval between elevation to elevation or depression to depression (Group 2). Fifty-seven cases (40.7%) had asymmetric depressions (or steep areas) or asymmetric elevations (or flat areas) which were classified as Group 3. The remaining 35 cases (26%) had a recognizable toric pattern with elevations and depressions but they were irregularly spaced or did not have the customary 180° periodicity (Group 4).


Conclusion: A new classification of conjunctival/scleral shape is presented based upon data now available through wide field elevation topography, which could be helpful in scleral lens fitting and potentially soft lens fitting as the landing zone of these lenses are beyond the corneal borders.

Abstract 803 | pdf Downloads 303 Video Abstract Downloads 0

References

1. Van der Worp E, Bornman D, Ferreira DL, et.al. Modern scleral contact lenses: A review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2014 Aug;37(4):240–50.
2. Barnett M. Messer B. Putting scleral lenses front and center. Review of cornea and contact lenses. Available at: http://www.reviewofcontactlenses.com/content/c/47747; 2014. (accessed 8/13/17).
3. Schornack, MM. Scleral lenses: a literature review Eye Contact Lens 2015 Jan;41(1):3–11.
4. Walker MK, Bergmanson J2, Miller WL et.al. Com-plications and fitting challenges associated with scleral contact lenses: A review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2016 Apr;39(2):88–96.
5. Van der Worp E. A Guide to scleral lens fitting (2nd edition). Pacific Un. Common Knowledge. Jan 2016. Available at: http://commons.pacificu.edu/mono/10/ (accessed 8/13/17).
6. Hall LA1, Hunt C, Young G, Wolffsohn J. Factors af-fecting corneoscleral topography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013 May 1;54(5):3691–701.
7. Kinoshita, B, Morrison, S, Caroline, P. Corneal toricity and scleral asymmetry…are they related? Poster GSLS 2016; January 21-24, Las Vegas, USA.
8. Siebert, S, Jedlicka, J. Utilizing corneal topography to aid in predicting scleral topography for the purpose of fitting scleral contact lenses. Poster GSLS 2017; Janu-ary 26-29, Las Vegas, USA. Available at: http://www. gslsymposium.com/getattachment/Posters/Siebert,-Sara-Utilizing-Corneal-Topography-to-Aid-in-Predicting-Scleral-Topography.pdf.aspx (accessed 8/18/17).
9. Iskander DR, Wachel P, Simpson PN, et.al. Principles of operation, accuracy and precision of an Eye Surface Profiler. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2016;36(3):266–78.
10. DeNaeyer G, Sanders DR, Farajian TS. Surface cover-age with single vs. multiple gaze surface topography to fit scleral lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2017 Jun;40(3):162–69.
11. Zhang X, Li Q, Xiang M, et al. Bulbar conjunctival thickness measurements with optical coherence tomog-raphy in healthy Chinese subjects, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013 Jul 12;54(7):4705–9.
12. Howlett J, Vahdani K, Rossiter J. Bulbar conjunctival and tenon’s layer thickness measurement using optical coherence tomography. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2014 May-Aug;8(2):63–6.
13. Caroline P, Andre M. Scleral lens settling. Cont Lens Spect May 2012:56.
14. Mulay, J, Parker, K, Designing toric scleral lens to fit a highly astigmatic (9.00 Cyl) patient utilizing the eaglet-eye esp technology. Poster GSLS 2017; January 26-29, Las Vegas, USA. Available at: http://www.gslsymposium. com/getattachment/Posters/Mulay,-John-Designing-Toric-Scleral-Lens.pdf.aspx (accessed 9/14/17).
15. Caroline P, Andre, M, Scleral shape 360º around. Cont Lens Spect September 2016.
16. Kojima R, Caroline P Graff T, et al. Eye shape and scleral lenses- understanding the shape of the anterior segment can help improve success with lens design and fitting. Cont Lens Spect April 2013.
17. Visser ES, Visser R, Van Lier HJ, Advantages of toric scleral lenses. Optom Vision Sci 2006;4:233–6.
18. Visser ES, Van der Linden BJ, Otten HM, et al. Medi-cal applications and outcomes of bitangential scleral lenses. Optom Vision Sci 2013;90:1078–85.
19. Schornack MM Toric haptics in scleral lens design: a case series. Poster GSLS 2013; January 27-29, Las Vegas, USA.
20. Gemoules G, A novel method of fitting scleral lenses using high resolution optical coherence tomography. Eye Cont Lens 2008;3:80–83
21. DeNaeyer GD, Sanders DR. sMap3D corneo-scleral topographer repeatability in scleral lens patients. Eye Cont Lens 2017 Jul 21. doi: [Epub ahead of print].