Outcome of various contact lenses in advanced corneal ectasia
| Author | Type of CL | Type of study | Indications | Sample size | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gupta et al29 | ROSE K versus Soper lenses | Randomised control trial | Keratoconus | n=60 | ROSE K cases; significantly better glare acuity and contrast sensitivity BCLCVA—no significant difference |
| Fernandez-Velazquez 30 | Kerasoft IC versus ROSE K | Retrospective | Keratoconus PMD | n1=94 (KC) n2=77(ROSE K) | BCLCVA—no significant difference |
| Baran et al31 | PROSE | Retrospective | Corneal ectasia | n=59 | Satisfactory fit and significant improvement in visual acuity |
| Lee et al34 | PROSE | Retrospective | Keratoconus Post-PKP | n1=25 n2=18 | Improvement in visual acuity—88% and OSDI score—79% of cases |
| Rathi et al33 | BOSP | Retrospective | RGP lenses failure and cases of corneal ectasia | n=23 | Significant improvement in visual acuity |
BCLCVA, best contact lens corrected visual acuity; BOSP, Boston ocular surface prosthesis; CL, contact lenses; KC, keratoconus; OSDI, Ocular Surface Disease Index; PKP, penetrating keratoplasty; PMD, pellucid marginal degeneration; PROSE, prosthetic replacement of ocular surface ecosystem; RGP, rigid gas permeable.