Diagnosis and management of keratoconus by eye care practitioners in Kenya

Abstract

Abstract Background To explore current eye care practice in keratoconus diagnosis and management in Kenya. Methods An online questionnaire was distributed to ophthalmic clinical officers (OCO) and optometrists. Results A total of 203 responses were received from 52 OCOs and 151 optometrists with a response rate of 24.4% and 53.5% respectively. The majority reported having access to retinoscopes (88.5%; p = 0.48) and slit lamps (76.7; p = 0.14). Few practitioners had access to a corneal topographer (13.5%; p = 0.08) and rigid contact lens (CL) fitting sets (OCOs 5.8%, optometrists 33.8%; p < 0.01). One-third did not feel that retinoscopy (38.7%; p = 0.21), slit lamp findings (30.3%; p = 0.10) and corneal topography (36.6%; p = 0.39) are important investigations in keratoconus diagnosis. Corneal topography was not recommended in two-thirds of patients (59.0%; p = 0.33) with vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC). The majority counselled against eye rubbing in mild (73.6%; p = 0.90) VKC, 52.9% in moderate (p = 0.40) and 43.6% in severe (p = 0.24) cases. The majority prescribed spectacles in mild (90.2%; p = 0.95), 29% (p = 0.97) in moderate and 1.9% (p = 0.05) in severe cases. When the binocular best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) with spectacles was ≤ 6/18, 76.9% of OCOs and 58.9% of optometrists referred for CLs (p = 0.02). When binocular BCVA with CLs dropped to ≤ 6/18, 83.7% (p = 0.18) referred to the ophthalmologist for surgical intervention. Few OCOs fitted rigid CLs (15.4% OCOs, 51.0% optometrists; p = 0.01), majority referred to optometrists (82.7% OCOs, 43.7% optometrists; p < 0.01). Progression was monitored in 70.1% (p = 0.11) of mild, 50.9% (p = 0.54) moderate and 25.3% (p = 0.31) advanced cases. Few OCOs (15.4%) performed corneal cross-linking (CXL). A few respondents (5.4%; p = 0.13) did not know when to refer keratoconus patients for CXL. Co-management with ophthalmologists was reported by 58.0% (p = 0.06) of respondents. Conclusion The results of this study highlight the need to map services for keratoconus patients, review current curricula and continuous education priorities for mid-level ophthalmic workers, develop guidelines for the diagnosis and management of keratoconus and improve interdisciplinary collaboration.