ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2020
Case Report: What Are We Doing for Our "20/20 Unhappy" Scleral Lens Patients?
Article in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- In Vitro Repeatability and Inter-Device Agreement of Higher-Order Aberration Measurements in Scleral Lenses Using Two Hartmann-Shack Metrology Devices.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Scleral lenses and PROSE: indications, complications, and future challenges.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025Review
- Impact of Scleral Lenses on Visual Acuity and Ocular Aberrations in Corneal Ectasia: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Clinical applications of personalising the neural components of visual image quality metrics for individual eyes.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
significanceScleral lenses (SLs) partially mask higher-order aberrations (HOAs) in highly aberrated eyes. Although visual acuity (VA) may show satisfactory quantitative clinical outcomes during SL wear, residual (uncorrected) HOAs can leave subjective visual quality goals unmet. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to report a case where a "20/20 unhappy" patient with SLs was able to meet visual goals with wavefront-guided SLs. CASE REPORT: A 40-year-old male with bilateral keratoconus, whose Snellen VA with SLs was 20/20 right eye (OD) 20/16 left eye (OS), reported halos and glare at night and perceptual smearing. When viewing a point of light, a "Ferris wheel" shadowing was observed OD and a U-shaped shadowing OS. Residual higher-order root mean square wavefront error was 0.49 μm OD and 0.39 μm OS; visual image quality measured by visual Strehl ratio was 0.067 OD and 0.092 OS (pupil size, 4.00 mm). Wavefront-guided SLs reduced residual higher-order root mean square to 0.19 μm OD and 0.25 μm OS, VA improved to 20/10 OD and 20/13 OS, and visual Strehl improved to 0.150 OD and 0.121 OS. The patient reported reduced smearing, shadowing, and night vision concerns, meeting his visual expectations and goals.
conclusionsWavefront sensing quantifies both lower and HOAs, which can cause visual dissatisfaction in individuals with highly aberrated eyes, despite sometimes reaching typical levels of VA. As wavefront-guided SLs targeting these residual aberrations to improve visual image quality become more available, they should be considered for 20/20 unhappy patients when conventional clinical options are unsatisfactory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.