ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Scleral Lens Fenestrations and Fluid Reservoir Debris.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe accumulation of debris within the fluid reservoir during scleral lens wear can adversely affect vision, resulting in the need for lens removal. This study aimed to quantify the effect of incorporating limbal scleral lens fenestrations upon fluid reservoir debris.
methodsTwenty healthy adults (mean age 32 ± 11 years, 10 females/10 males) with normal corneas wore non-fenestrated and fenestrated (3 × 1 mm diameter limbal fenestrations separated by 120°) OneFitMed+ scleral lenses (No.7 Contact Lenses) in both eyes (on separate days) for 3 h. All other scleral lens parameters were held constant except for the addition of the fenestrations by the manufacturer. Customised image analysis (MATLAB) was used to quantify central fluid reservoir debris (an average and total intensity metric) from Scheimpflug images of the right eye.
resultsFluid reservoir debris increased over time (p < 0.001), more so for non-fenestrated lenses. After 3 h, the increase in fluid reservoir debris was greater for the non-fenestrated lens design (total metric increase: non-fenestrated 66 ± 21 vs fenestrated 14 ± 7 arbitrary units [p = 0.03], average metric increase: non-fenestrated 9 ± 2 vs fenestrated 5 ± 1 arbitrary units [p = 0.07]). There was no significant difference in the magnitude of debris for fenestrated lenses fitted with or without an air bubble (p = 0.80). There was no association between central corneal oedema and the fluid reservoir intensity metrics for either the fenestrated (R
conclusionsAfter 3 h, non-fenestrated lenses displayed a 2 (average metric) to 4.8 times (total metric) greater increase in central fluid reservoir debris than fenestrated lenses. This suggests a potential role for fenestrated lens designs in managing fluid reservoir debris; however, longer-term studies of participants with ocular disease are required. CLINICAL TRIAL: This study was registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (Registration number 12622001164785p), date of registration 24/8/2022.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.