Table 3.
Profile of all 28 patients divided into the different contact lens groups
| No | Age/sex | Diagnosis leadingto keratoplasty | First CL (months) | Central radius | Eccentricity | Spectacle VA | CL VA | Specialties | |
| Tricurve design | |||||||||
| 1 | 36/M | Keratoconus | 17 | 7.98 | 6.88 | 0.35 | 0.5 | 0.7 | |
| 2 | 65/F | Fuchs’ dystrophy | 6 | 6.08 | 5.66 | 0.1 | 0.02 | 0.05 | Amblyopia |
| 3 | 49/F | Keratoconus | 336 | 8.95 | 8.12 | 0.25 | 0.2 | 0.5 | mydriasis |
| 4 | 43/M | Keratoconus | 48 | 7.16 | 6.18 | 0.29 | 0.2 | 0.8 | |
| 5 | 37/M | Herpes | 26 | 8.23 | 6.79 | 0.39 | 0.5 | 0.9 | |
| 6 | 35/M | Keratoconus | 12 | 8.06 | 7.72 | 0.01 | 0.3 | 0.6 | Front toric |
| 7 | 49/F | Fuchs’ dystrophy | 60 | 7.37 | 6.58 | −0.77 | 0.6 | 0.9 | Bitoric CL |
| 8 | 65/F | Fuchs’ dystrophy | 60 | 7.88 | 7.02 | −0.73 | 0.5 | 0.9 | Bitoric CL |
| 9 | 43/M | Keratoconus | 12 | 8.69 | 7.81 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 1.25 | Bitoric CL |
| 10 | 57/M | Keratoconus | 20 | 7.92 | 7.29 | −0.9 | 0.8 | 1.0 | Bitoric CL |
| 11 | 23/M | Herpes | 4 | 8.27 | 6.81 | 0.28 | 0.6 | 1.0 | Bitoric CL |
| Keratoconus design | |||||||||
| 12 | 62/F | Scarring | 17 | 6.54 | 6.32 | 0.89 | 0.2 | 0.7 | |
| 13 | 61/M | Fuchs’ dystrophy | 60 | 7.40 | 6.78 | 0.75 | 0.05 | 0.1 | Amblyopia |
| 14 | 52/M | Scarring | 336 | 7.49 | 7.03 | 0.82 | 0.6 | 0.8 | |
| Reverse design | |||||||||
| Tetracurve reverse design | |||||||||
| 15 | 41/M | Keratoconus | 8 | 7.74 | 6.69 | −0.74 | 0.2 | 0.6 | |
| 16 | 36/F | Ulcer | 17 | 8.18 | 7.00 | −0.32 | 0.7 | 0.9 | |
| 17 | 57/M | Keratoconus | 14 | 8.81 | 7.01 | −0.89 | 0.2 | 0.5 | |
| 18 | 36/M | Keratoconus | 60 | 6.97 | 6.85 | −0.35 | 0.5 | 1.0 | |
| 19 | 36/M | Keratoconus | 17 | 7.95 | 6.83 | −0.02 | 0.2 | 0.9 | |
| 20 | 17/F | Scarring | 15 | 6.95 | 6.83 | −0.22 | 0.4 | 0.7 | |
| 21 | 46/M | Scarring | 15 | 8.54 | 7.70 | −0.02 | 0.1 | 0.2 | |
| 22 | 26/F | Ulcer | 42 | 7.86 | 6.36 | −0.12 | 0.1 | 0.9 | |
| 23 | 20/F | Keratoconus | 10 | 8.01 | 7.07 | −0.17 | 0.4 | 0.6 | |
| 24 | 20/F | Keratoconus | 2 | 6.77 | 6.51 | −0.07 | 0.4 | 0.8 | |
| Oblong reverse design | |||||||||
| 25 | 69/F | Fuchs’ dystrophy | 18 | 9.68 | 7.62 | −0.37 | 0.1 | 0.9 | |
| 26 | 69/F | Fuchs’ dystrophy | 3 | 8.76 | 6.33 | −0.91 | 0.1 | 0.4 | Cataract |
| 27 | 34/M | Keratoconus | 34 | 7.33 | 7.18 | −0.92 | 0.2 | 0.9 | |
| 28 | 52/M | Keratoconus | 12 | 7.72 | 7.38 | −0.38 | 0.1 | 0.3 | |
The selected lens design depends strongly on the eccentricity ɛ. We fitted a tricurve design lens (fig 1) in cases of 0⩽ɛ⩽0.4; a keratoconus design in cases of 0.7⩽ɛ⩽0.9; a reverse design (oblong/tetracurve) in cases of negative eccentricity. If the astigmatism involves both the graft and the host, a bitoric design is recommendable. In this case the role of eccentricity is minimised. If we found remaining astigmatism but a good fit, we selected a front toric design.