This is the first paper I remember seeing about EyePrintPRO in an ophthalmology journal! So excited. I know some great things have been presented at meetings, but it's nice to see something on a PubMed search now.

EyePrintPRO is an amazing technology, where lenses can be created from a physical mold of the eye surface. I've been fortunate enough to be wearing EPP lenses for about four years now myself, and I feel awfully spoiled. Not everyone, of course, needs the highest technology lenses, and there's a high price on technologies like these, but their existence is a godsend for those who need them, particularly those who have special fitting difficulties that just can't be solved with more conventionally designed lenses.

This abstract is only on ten patients, but there are many people being fitted now all over the country. Mine were fitted by Roya Habibi in Seattle. I enjoyed reading the list of indications that the ten patients in the study had for the lenses:

LSCD (limbal stem cell deficiency)
PRK (the laser refractive surgery without the flap) decentred ablation
pellucid marginal degeneration
Stevens-Johnson syndrome
keratoconus
dry eye
neurotrophic keratitis, exposure keratitis from facial nerve paralysis
RK (radial keratotomy, the thing they used to do before PRK and LASIK)

I feel like I'm in good company with the PRK and RK patients. I have central islands (which everyone always assumes came from an old broadband excimer laser... only, they didn't... it was a VISX Star S3, which was pretty hot stuff back in 2001) and off-the-charts spherical aberration plus a fair amount of pain. I get good vision and comfortable days with the right lenses, but the only lenses I've ever been able to successfully wear long term have been PROSE and EyePrintPro.

The inventor of EPP lenses, Dr Christine Sindt from U of Iowa, is one of those wonderful eye doctors who combine being an extraordinary scientific leader in their field with heart-warming kindness towards patients. We've had the good fortune to have her input now and then in our FB scleral lens group.

Can J Ophthalmol. 2018 Feb;53(1):66-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2017.07.026. Epub 2017 Sep 28.

EyePrintPRO therapeutic scleral contact lens: indications and outcomes.

Nguyen MTB1, Thakrar V2, Chan CC3.

Author information

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To describe indications and outcomes of patients fitted with the EyePrintPRO therapeutic scleral lens.

METHODS:

A database search of patients fitted with the EyePrintPRO from 2014 to 2016. Fourteen eyes of 10 patients were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics, medical and ocular history, indications for fitting, duration of wear, symptoms, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were analyzed.

RESULTS:

Mean age at lens fitting was 49 years (range, 21-67 years). The average duration of wear was 12 months (range, 7-17 months). Indications for fitting included limbal stem cell deficiency, post-photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) decentred ablation, pellucid marginal degeneration, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, keratoconus, dry eye, neurotrophic keratitis, exposure keratitis from facial nerve paralysis, and post-radial keratotomy (RK) symptoms. Mean BCVA was 20/36 (range, 20/20-20/200). After the fitting, mean BCVA was 20/21 (range 20/10-20/60, p = 0.001). Nine patients reported resolution of their blurry vision, and all reported improvement of dry eye, eye redness, and pain symptoms. Six of 7 previous lens wearers reported significantly greater comfort with EyePrintPRO wear and the ability to wear the lens throughout the day; only 2 experienced fogging and needed to clean the lens after 4-6 hours of wear.

CONCLUSIONS:

A variety of indications for the EyePrintPRO scleral lens exist, and patients experience resolution of major symptoms. The ophthalmologist should be aware that therapeutic scleral lenses, including the EyePrintPRO, exist for patients for whom there is no surgical intervention or who want to delay or obviate the need for surgery.

p.s. Just after I posted this, I saw the March 2018 newsletter from Scleral Lens Monthly - on the exact same topic! Great reading.

As an EyePrintPro scleral lens user (going on 4 years now!) this abstract caught my eye. I looked it up to confirm - polyvinylsiloxane is the material used for taking impressions for EyePrintPro and yes, this study shows it is the better method (less redness, less staining, fewer complications).

This is the stuff I have always affectionately referred to as "high tech blue goo".

Eye Contact Lens. 2018 Feb 28. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000496. [Epub ahead of print]Ocular Impression-Taking-Which Material Is Best?Turner JM1, Purslow C, Murphy PJ.OBJECTIVES:To assess the efficacy and effect on clinical signs of a polyvinylsiloxane (Tresident; Shütz Dental Group GmbH, Germany) compared with an irreversible hydrocolloid (Orthoprint; Zhermack SpA, Badia Polesine, Italy) for ocular impression-taking.METHODS:Twenty subjects were recruited (13 female and 7 male), with mean age 31.1±4.6 years (SD) (range 25.8-39.7). Subjects attended for 2 sessions, each of 1-hr duration, on 2 separate days. Each session was scheduled at the same time on each day. At each visit, the subject underwent an ocular impression procedure, using either Tresident or Orthoprint, in random order and to one eye only. Investigator 2 was blind to this assignment. Two experienced practitioners conducted the study, investigator 1 performed the ocular impression procedures and investigator 2 observed and assessed the clinical signs: logMAR visual acuity, ocular surface staining, tear break-up time (TBUT), and ocular hyperemia.RESULTS:Visual acuity was unaffected by either material; TBUT was marginally disrupted by both materials, but was not clinically significant according to published criteria; ocular redness increased with both materials; and corneal staining was significantly greater after Orthoprint impression. Less redness and clinically insignificant staining after impression-taking, with fewer clinical complications, was found after use of Tresident.CONCLUSIONS:Tresident offers a quicker, more effective, and clinically viable method of obtaining ocular impression topography compared with the traditional Orthoprint, and Orthoprint causes significantly more superficial punctuate staining of the corneal epithelium than Tresident.