Basic and beyond: technology for every level of scleral lens management

Ten years ago, I was midway through a cornea and contact lens residency at Pacific University and wondering whether scleral lenses (SLs) would be here to stay or if they were a passing trend. In 2023, it seems SLs are being reached for more than ever. Along with the continued excitement about using SLs, we have seen impressive advancements in the technology to fit and manage them.

During my evolution as a scleral practitioner, I have encountered a range of approaches to fitting, using equipment as ubiquitous a slit lamp as well as some of the most advanced fitting technology in the world. Most recently, I took the plunge to add 1 advanced tool that was missing from my toolbox, the EyePrintPro (EyePrint Prosthetics). This custom, 3D-printed, impression-based lens is among the most sophisticated tools available for fitting SLs. But I didn’t reach for this technology right out the gate; I grew into it and my patient base evolved to include patients who need advanced levels of SL wear.My experience with SL technology has helped me understand how different technologies can be used at different levels of SL management.

Basic scleral lens fitting with minimal technology

Figure 1. Anterior Chamber. The depth of the anterior chamber (AC) can be estimated with a slit lamp using an optic section technique analogous to the Van Herick angle estimation. A gross estimation is sufficient and a lens with a relatively low, average, or high sagittal (SAG) value can be chosen. A relatively shallow SAG (A) will be about a 1:4 ratio or less and require a lower relative SAG, and a deeper AC (B) (eg, deeper than about 1:6 ratio) will require a deeper SAG lens.

Abbreviations: AC, SAG

Every optometrist has the tools to fit scleral lenses; the only necessary add-on is a diagnostic fitting set. A trial lens can be selected using the anterior chamber (AC) depth (Figure 1) and width to select an appropriate sagittal height (SAG) and diameter, respectively, for the starting lens.

The width of the AC is estimated by measuring the horizontal visible iris diameter and then selecting a SL that is at least 3 mm greater, ie, allowing at least 1.5-mm overlap on each side. From the best estimated first diagnostic lens, make an assessment and move up and down in SAG and diameter until there is appropriate clearance (100 to 500 μm works well), landing outside the limbus, allowing for an overrefraction and lens assessment. Consult fitting guides, take videos, call consultants, document everything, and you have all you need to be successful.

Incorporating advanced technology into a growing SL practice

Moving beyond the first several SLs, a developing practitioner can begin to invest in equipment to monitor underlying diseases and investigate complications proactively and to design more sophisticated SLs if desired. The precise technology that fits into a practice is unique, considering the SL and ocular features that are a priority in the practice and what combinations of instruments can accomplish these goals. There are essentially 3 features you want to be able to assess with technology: the corneal shape, the scleral shape, and the optics, and there are various technologies that can assess them.

Corneal shape

Corneal shape is important to understand so that disease can be diagnosed and monitored, particularly in irregular corneas, ie, in most SL wearers. SLs alter the corneal curvature,^1-3 thickness,^4-9 and aberrations,¹⁰ and although these changes are not often clinically significant, they cannot be fully understood without corneal topography or tomography. Some options for evaluating corneal shape are as follows:

1. Corneal topographers:These measure the anterior corneal surface. There are several commercially available options, including E300 Corneal Topographer (Medmont), Keratograph 5M, (Oculus), and IOLMaster 700 (Zeiss). A nice feature of topography is that it allows assessment of tear film quality (eg, in a dry eye patient), which may be a priority for some scleral practitioners. A drawback is that they do not measure the posterior cornea.

2. Corneal tomographers: These measure the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces, allowing for global pachymetry and posterior curvature measurements. Available options include Pentacam (Oculus) and Galilei (Ziemer Ophthalmic Systems). Although there is usually minimal corneal edema with SL,^7,11,12 there are several populations (eg, postsurgical and postinfectious corneas^13-15) in which there appears to be a heightened risk for edema. Furthermore, posterior curvatures may be of interest to a scleral practitioner who is working with irregular corneas (eg, keratoconus) and advanced optical designs.

3. Optical coherence tomography (OCT): This instrument is widely used for many ocular applications and can be useful in SL management.^16-19 An OCT with anterior segment capabilities—eg, Optovue Avanti OCT (Visionix) and Cirrus OCT (Zeiss)—is a good method to measure global pachymetry and can also be used to measure corneal vault,¹⁹ the peripheral SL fit,¹⁸ and even scleral shape.²⁰

Scleral shape

Advancements in the understanding and technology available to measure scleral shape have brought SL fitting to a new echelon. As SLs become a bigger part of a practice, it’s time to invest in a scleral topographer (Figure 2).

Figure 2.Scleral Topography. Using scleral topography to design a scleral lens (SL) can take the estimation out of the fitting process and allow for a more precise and well-fitted lens from the start. The scleral topography here shows oblique asymmetries (cool colors indicate relative depression and warmer colors indicate relative elevation), which were measured and accommodated with 134 μm of edge toricity. The first lens was well fitted, aligned in the periphery with about 190 μm of apical clearance.

A scleral topographer allows specific, data-based decisions about lens shape, which can be quite variable and unpredictable,^21-25 even in normal eyes.^22,23 Focal elevations (eg, pinguecula, AC surgeries) are particularly difficult to estimate as they exist on a micron scale. In the US, there are 2 available stand-alone scleral topographers—the sMap3D (Precision Ocular Metrology) and the Eye Surface Profiler (Eaglet Eye)—as well as an add-on to some models of the Pentacam. I cannot recommend these advanced technologies enough in the context of SL management, but I do concede that aside from the Pentacam, they do not have additional utility beyond scleral topography.

Optics

Scleral lenses are all about providing superior optics so technology that allows precise measurement and correction of advanced optics or higher order aberrations (HOAs) is useful as a practice grows. An aberrometer is necessary to detect and correct HOAs in SL and while there are several available—eg, iTrace visual function analyzer (Tracey Technologies) and xwave System (Ovitz)—most are not currently able to collaborate with manufacturing labs on lens designs, although Ovitz has started to partner with manufacturers in the US. Correcting HOAs is a complicated and advanced process but at last, these advancements are available to a deeply invested scleral practitioner.

Taking it to the next level: Molded and HOA lens technology

One of the most advanced methods of SL practice is to use a molded scleral lens design such as the EyePrintPro (EPP) (Figure 3), and/or incorporating HOA correction and other advanced features to SLs. At our community-based urban practice at the University of Houston College of Optometry, we see many train wrecks, and my colleague and friend Karen Lee (OD, assistant professor, University of Houston College of Optometry) and I have been collecting patients who have been kicking the can down the road, so to speak, making it work with the best that we had but being limited on wear time, comfort, and dodging from 1 complication to another. We finally decided that we needed to bring the EPP to our practice.

Figure 3.Molds of the Eye. The EyePrintPro is a custom molded technology that uses a custom polymer to take a precise mold of the eye and the lenses are designed through Elevation Specific Technology. Customizations include asymmetric small and large lens diameters, channels, fenestrations, higher order aberration (HOA) correction, prism, multifocal optics, and more. (Images courtesy of Maria K. Walker, OD, PhD.)

My first patient was a dry eye patient who needed full coverage and had several areas of elevation (bilateral pingueculas, areas of conjunctival hypertrophy) that were interacting with her already quite sophisticated lenses. We ended up designing a 19.5 mm–wide by
18 mm–high lens.

We have another patient who has already been in the wavefront-guided optics process with another lens but needs a more customized lens shape and yet another with huge elevation irregularities, ie, extreme asymmetrical graft-host junction elevations, where we will build channels into the lens to manage recurring edema.

This more advanced technology is certainly not necessary for the “everyday” scleral lens patient (if that is such a thing), but as an SL practice grows, there will inevitably be at least a handful of patients who really need and want this advanced technology. And I imagine the more you use it, more people will seek you out.

References

1. Soeters N, Visser ES, Imhof SM, Tahzib NG. Scleral lens influence on corneal curvature and pachymetry in keratoconus patients. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2015;38(4):294-297. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2015.03.006

2. Kumar M, Shetty R, Lalgudi VG, Vincent SJ. Scleral lens wear following penetrating keratoplasty: changes in corneal curvature and optics. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2020;40(4):502-509. doi:10.1111/opo.12693

3. Serramito-Blanco M, Carpena-Torres C, Carballo J, Piñero D, Lipson M, Carracedo G. Anterior corneal curvature and aberration changes after scleral lens wear in keratoconus patients with and without ring segments. Eye Contact Lens. 2019;45(2):141-148. doi:10.1097/ICL.0000000000000534

4. Tan B, Tse V, Kim YH, Lin K, Zhou Y, Lin MC. Effects of scleral-lens oxygen transmissibility on corneal thickness: a pilot study. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2019;42(4):366-372. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2019.04.002

5. Pullum KW, Stapleton FJ. Scleral lens induced corneal swelling: what is the effect of varying Dk and lens thickness? CLAO J. 1997;23(4):259-263

6. Serramito M, Carpena-Torres C, Carballo JJ, Piñero D, Lipson M, Carracedo G. Posterior cornea and thickness changes after scleral lens wear in keratoconus patients. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2019;42(1):85-91. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2018.04.200

7. Fisher D, Collins MJ, Vincent SJ. Fluid reservoir thickness and corneal edema during open-eye scleral lens wear. Optom Vis Sci. 2020;97(9):683-689. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001558

8. Shahnazi KC, Isozaki VL, Chiu GB. Effect of scleral lens wear on central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure in patients with ocular surface disease. Eye Contact Lens. 2020;46(6):341-347. doi:10.1097/ICL.0000000000000670

9. Esen F, Toker E. Influence of apical clearance on mini-scleral lens settling, clinical performance, and corneal thickness changes. Eye Contact Lens. 2017;43(4):230-235. doi:10.1097/ICL.000000000000026610.

10. Kumar M, Shetty R, Dutta D, Rao HL, Jayadev C, Atchison DA. Effects of a semi-scleral contact lens on refraction and higher order aberrations. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2019;42(6):670-674. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2019.06.002

11. Kim YH, Tan B, Lin MC, Radke CJ. Central corneal edema with scleral-lens wear. Curr Eye Res. 2018;43(11):1305-1315. doi:10.1080/02713683.2018.1500610

12 . Compañ V, Oliveira C, Aguilella-Arzo M, Mollá S, Peixoto-de-Matos SC, González-Méijome JM. Oxygen diffusion and edema with modern scleral rigid gas permeable contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(10):6421-6429. doi:10.1167/iovs.14-14038

13. Arnold TP, Vincent SJ. Scleral lens-induced corneal edema after radial keratotomy. Eye Contact Lens. 2021;47(10):575-577. doi:10.1097/ICL.0000000000000835

14. Murillo S, Shariff A, Lass J, Szczotka-Flynn L. Acute corneal edema decades after penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus in eyes wearing scleral contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2021;44(1):108-114. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2020.10.008

15. Sklar J, Thakrar V, Sorkin N, Chan C. Endothelial dysfunction after scleral lens use in patients with herpetic eye disease. Can J Ophthalmol. 2020;55(6):527-528. doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2020.07.010

16. Gemoules G. A novel method of fitting scleral lenses using high resolution optical coherence tomography. Eye Contact Lens. 2008;34(2):80-83. doi:10.1097/ICL.0b013e318166394d

17. Vincent SJ, Alonso-Caneiro D, Collins MJ. Optical coherence tomography and scleral contact lenses: clinical and research applications. Clin Exp Optom. 2019;102(3):224-241. doi:10.1111/cxo.12814

18. Gimenez-Sanchis I, Palacios-Carmen B, García-Garrigós A, Cantó-Vañó J, Pérez-Ortega AJ, Piñero DP. Anterior segment optical coherence tomography angiography to evaluate the peripheral fitting of scleral contact lenses. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2018;10:103-108. doi:10.2147/OPTO.S164454

19. Rathi VM, Mandathara PS, Dumpati S, Sangwan VS. Change in vault during scleral lens trials assessed with anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2017;40(3):157-161. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2017.03.008

20. Bandlitz S, Bäumer J, Conrad U, Wolffsohhn J. Scleral topography analysed by optical coherence tomography. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2017;40(4):242-247. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2017.04.00621.

21. Dhaese SE, Kreps EO, Consejo A. Scleral shape and its correlation with corneal parameters in keratoconus. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2021;44(4):101366. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2020.08.010

22. Ritzmann M, Caroline PJ, Börret R, Korszen E. An analysis of anterior scleral shape and its role in the design and fitting of scleral contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2018;41(2):205-213. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2017.10.010

23. DeNaeyer G, Sanders DR, van der Worp E, Jedlicka J, Michaud L, Morrison S. Qualitative assessment of scleral shape patterns using a new wide field ocular surface elevation topographer: the SSSG study. J Cont Lens Res & Sci. 2017;1(1):12-22. doi:10.22374/jclrs.v1i1.11

24. Kasahara M, Shoji N, Morita T, Shimizu K. Comparative optical coherence tomography study of differences in scleral shape between the superonasal and superotemporal quadrants. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2014;58(5):396-401. doi:10.1007/s10384-014-0329-1

25. Sorbara L, Maram J, Mueller K. Use of the Visante OCT to measure the sagittal depth and scleral shape of keratoconus compared to normal corneae: pilot study. J Optom. 2013;6(3):141-146. doi:10.1016/j.optom.2013.02.002