{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03376205787781351, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015541264737406217, 'mean_word_length': 5.350340136054422, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Clinical evaluation of a computerized topography software method for fitting rigid gas permeable contact lenses.

Computerized videokeratoscope software programs now have the ability to assist in the design of rigid gas permeable (RGP) contact lenses and simulate fluorescein patterns. We evaluated the performance of Computed Anatomy's Topographic Modeling System (TMS-1) and its Contact Lens Fitting Program (version 1.41) in fitting RGP lenses in 31 subjects. Computerized topographic analysis, balanced manifest refraction, slit lamp examination, and keratometry were performed. Initial lens parameters were ordered according to manufacturer's programmed recommendations for base curve, power, lens diameter, optic zone diameter, and edge lift. Final lens parameters were based on clinical performance. Lenses were recorded for base curve changes of 0.1 mm or more, power alterations of +/- 0.50 D or more, or for any alteration in diameter/optic zone. Twenty-seven patients were analyzed for all five recommended parameters. Thirteen of 27 patients (48%) required no parameter changes. Nine of 27 patients (33%) required one parameter change, four of 27 patients (15%) required two parameter changes, and one patient (4%) needed three parameters altered. The most prevalent change was a power alteration, required in nine of 27 patients (33%); however, comparisons of all initial to final parameters showed no statistically significant differences. Comparison of initial base curves to that which would have been chosen via standard keratometry also showed no significant difference. This study found the TMS-1 default lens recommendations to be clinically unacceptable. This system, however, could be an alternative method of initial lens selection if used to titrate a fit or if software enhancements are incorporated to account for lens movement and flexure.