Keratoconus Australia and contact lenses

I was asked the question about who runs Keratoconus Australia based on the post below.

Keratoconus Australia and contact lenses
For further images visit:

Keratoconus Australia and contact lenes

This sounds very much like an emotive post, and I am not sure how it relates to the post from Optometry Australia.

I do not know who is running Keratoconus Australia or who put up this post but the claims it contains should not be left unquestioned.

The interesting “claims” include:

Firstly, they claim “overservicing by optometrists”

Next, they claim “scleral lenses are being promoted over traditional corneal lenses”

Finally, they claim scleral lenses have “possible long term impact on eye health”.

There is no ultimate truth authority in any medical field, and I do not hold any Facebook group as an authority on truth. Instead, truth should be held in authority.

Conjoint management of Keratoconus patients

As a surgeon involved in the conjoint management of keratoconus patients with optometry over the last 20 years, here is my experience:

  • Contact lens correction for keratoconus sufferers is under utilized
  • Scleral lenses have a DEFINITE place in the management of keratoconus
  • Complications from corneal and scleral lenses are rare.
  • Overwear or poor compliance with lenses can cause surface vascularisation, which settles with cessation of wear, and does not impede lamellar transplantation.
  • I have never seen bacterial keratitis from corneal or scleral lenses
  • Contact lenses can be difficult to fit in keratoconus, requiring repeated assessments
  • A comfortable contact lens can obviate the need for surgery
  • Where possible, contact lenses should be tried before all corneal transplant surgery
  • Patients seek the professional advice from carers over government guidelines, which is why they rarely read “guidelines”, including myself.

As you are all aware, there is a huge push worldwide to cross link all cone patients, despite excellent evidence from Gatinel that progression of disease ceases with abstinence from rubbing.

CXL is a relatively low risk high profit procedure, much like processed food is low cost high profit “food”. I tend to think of CXL as ophthalmic junk food, swapping the effort of stopping rubbing for a promise (and lots of cash).

Thanks again for bringing this to the attention of the group.

I am happy for you to share my reply to whichever group you wish.

More information available at

Need to book an appointment? Click here