Evidence Hub

Corneal and Intraocular Pressure Responses to Scleral Lens Wear: A Meta-Analysis

Martinez-Perez C, Sánchez-González MC, Sánchez-González JM

Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2026

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of scleral contact lens wear on central corneal thickness, corneal or stromal swelling and intraocular pressure, and to identify factors that may influence these outcomes.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the AMSTAR-2 quality assessment tool (registration number PROSPERO CRD420251141392). The PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched without language or date restrictions. Eligible studies included prospective, observational, controlled or crossover designs assessing physiological changes during or after scleral contact lens wear. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random- or fixed-effects models. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I-squared statistic, and meta-regressions examined the influence of lens and patient-level factors.

Results: Twenty-two studies, including 830 eyes, were analysed. Scleral contact lens wear produced a small but statistically significant increase in central corneal thickness while the lens was in place (mean difference: 7.93 µm; 95% CI: 4.92-10.95; p < 0.001; I² = 0%) and no significant change after lens removal (mean difference: 1.49 µm; p = 0.34). Corneal or stromal swelling showed a small increase of 0.88% (p < 0.001; I² = 83%), consistent with the small magnitude and variability of these changes across studies. Intraocular pressure after lens…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free