Mar-Abr - Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia

82Cukierman E, Boldrim TCONCLUSÃOEmbora a indicação estética tenha sido a maisfreqüente, uma fração significativa dos candidatos teveindicado o uso das lentes de contato por razões médicas,provavelmente por se tratar de um serviço de referência.As lentes rígidas apresentaram um papel de destaquenas adaptações, e dentre as adaptações com lentesgelatinosas houve, na maioria dos casos, preferência parao emprego de lentes convencionais de uso diário.SUMMARYPurpose: To describe the statistics of The Sector of ContactLens of Santa Casa da Misericórdia do Rio de Janeiro(Prof. Paiva Gonçalves Filho Eyes Service). Methods:Retrospective study of 355 cases of contact lenses fittingbetween September 2000 and August 2003. Results: Thebiggest number of cases occurred among female patients(62,82%) and the most frequent indication was esthetics(48,45%), what was also observed in the following ages:20-39 years old and 40-64 years old. Among the otherages, the most frequent indication was medical (46,48%of the total number), being the most common causesanisometropia (24,51%) and keratoconus (19,72%).Among the cases of keratoconus, 94,29% were fitted withmonocurve spherical rigid lenses and 5,71% with bicurverigid lenses. Among the presbit patients, 30,47% of thecases were adapted with simple monovision resources andthe remaining cases with the prescription of near visionspectacles on the contact lens. From the total number offitted cases, 64,51% were with rigid lens (mainly sphericalof low DK) and 35,49% with soft lens (mainly sphericalconventional of0 daily-wear). Conclusions: Although theesthetic indication has been the most frequent one, anexpressive number of candidates had the indication of theuse of contact lenses due to medical reasons, probablybecause it is a service of reference. The rigid lenses hadan important role in fitting and among the soft lensesthere was a preference for conventional daily-wear.Keywords: Contact lenses/statistical & numericaldata;Adaptation; Retrospective studiesREFERÊNCIAS1. Coral Ghanem C, José NK. Lentes de contato na clínicaoftalmológica. Joinville: 1995.2. Meyer GC, Vilela M, Weymar J. Lentes de contato: seguimentoem 6 meses de 508 novas adaptações. Arq BrasOftalmol. 1991; 54(3): 119-26.3. Kastl PR, Donzis PB, Cole HP 3rd, Rice J, Baldone JA. A 20-year retrospective study of the use of contact lenses inkeratoconus. CLAO J. 1987; 13(2): 102-4.4. Leça RG, Fukushima N, Gonzaga R, Lipener C, Zamboni F,Lewinsky R, Uras R. Estudo clínico da adaptação de lentesde contato no ceratocone. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 1995; 58(3):149-51.5. Stein HA. The management of presbyopia with contact lenses:a review. CLAO J. 1990; 16(1): 33-8. Review.6. Dart JK, Stapleton F, Minassian D. Contact lenses and otherrisk factors in microbial keratitis. Lancet. 1991; 338(8768):650-3.7. Schein OD, Glynn RJ, Poggio EC, Seddon JM, Kenyon KR.The relative risk of ulcerative keratitis among users of dailywearand extended-wear soft contact lenses. A case-controlstudy. Microbial Keratitis Study Group.N Engl J Med. 1989;321(12): 773-8.8. Buehler PO, Schein OD, Stamler JF, Verdier DD, Katz J. Theincreased risk of ulcerative keratitis among disposable softcontact lens users. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992; 110(11): 1555-8.9. Maia EM, Pietrovicz J, Maia M, Ramos ARB, Moreira JuniorCA. Adaptação e venda de lente de contato pelas ópticas deCuritiba. Rev Bras Oftalmol. 1999; 58(5): 396-400.ENDEREÇO PARA CORRESPONDÊNCIA:Eduardo CukiermanRua Siqueira Campos, 43 / salas 410 e 411 –Copacabana – Rio de Janeiro – RJ – CEP 22031-070Fax: (21) 2549-3394E-mail: eduardomba@terra.com.brRev Bras Oftalmol. 2005; 64 (2): 77-82