Visual performance with multifocal soft contact lenses in non-presbyopic myopic eyes during an adaptation period

Fedtke, Cathleen; Ehrmann, Klaus; Thomas, Varghese; Bakaraju, Ravi C.

doi:10.2147/opto.s96712

Cited by 12 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In congruence with the published literature 38,39 , results indicate that image quality across the visual field is reduced when multifocal contact lenses are worn. However, the overall results presented some inconsistencies, depending on the analysis.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

2-D Peripheral image quality metrics with different types of multifocal contact lenses

García

Wahl

Pusti

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate the impact of multifocal contact lens wear on the image quality metrics across the visual field in the context of eye growth and myopia control. Two-dimensional cross-correlation coefficients were estimated by comparing a reference image against the computed retinal images for every location. Retinal images were simulated based on the measured optical aberrations of the naked eye and a set of multifocal contact lenses (centre-near and centre-distance designs), and images were spatially filtered to match the resolution limit at each eccentricity. Value maps showing the reduction in the quality of the image through each optical condition were obtained by subtracting the optical image quality from the theoretical physiological limits. Results indicate that multifocal contact lenses degrade the image quality independently from their optical design, though this result depends on the type of analysis conducted. Analysis of the image quality across the visual field should not be oversimplified to a single number but split into regional and groups because it provides more insightful information and can avoid misinterpretation of the results. The decay of the image quality caused by the multifocal contacts alone, cannot explain the translation of peripheral defocus towards protection on myopia progression, and a different explanation needs to be found.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

2-D Peripheral image quality metrics with different types of multifocal contact lenses

García

Wahl

Pusti

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the presbyopic group was fitted with all six MFCL test lenses, only two MFCLs, ie, Proclear ® MFCL Distance and Near, were fitted to the non-presbyopic group, as those lenses would provide the greatest myopia control effect due to the greater plus area under the distance labeled power profile. 12 All measurements were performed after allowing a minimum of 10 minutes for the lenses to settle. Lenses remained on eye until all procedures were complete.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 5 Several studies have assessed the visual performance of commercial MFCLs in a presbyopic group 6 – 9 and a non-presbyopic myopic group. 2 , 10 , 11 In general, the quality of vision with MFCLs primarily depends on the power distribution across the optic zone, ie, the lens design (power profile), 12 the near add power, 11 and the size of the pupil. 13 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between multifocal soft contact lens decentration and visual performance

Fedtke

Ehrmann

Thomas

et al. 2016

OPTO

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess the association between decentration of several commercial multifocal soft contact lenses (MFCLs) and various objective and subjective visual performance variables in presbyopic and non-presbyopic participants.Materials and methodsAll presbyopic (age >40 years, near add ≥+1.25 D) and non-presbyopic (age ≥18 years, no near add requirements, spherical equivalent ≤−0.50 D) participants were each fitted bilaterally with six and two MFCLs (test lens), respectively, and with one single vision lens (control lens). Lens decentration, ie, the x- and y-differences between the contact lens and pupil centers, was objectively determined. Third-order aberrations were measured and compared. Visual performance (high- and low-contrast acuities and several subjective variables) was analyzed for any associations (Pearson’s correlation, r) with MFCL decentration.ResultsA total of 17 presbyopic (55.1±6.9 years) and eight non-presbyopic (31.0±3.3 years) participants completed the study. All lenses displayed a temporal–inferior decentration (x=−0.36±0.29 mm, y=−0.28±0.28 mm, mean ± SD). Compared to the control, a significant inferior decentration was found for the Proclear® MFCL Near lens in both groups (ypresbyopic =−0.26 mm, ynon-presbyopic =−0.70 mm) and for the Proclear® MFCL Distance lens in the non-presbyopic group (ynon-presbyopic =−0.69 mm). In both groups, lens-induced vertical coma (C(3, −1)) was, by at least tenfold, significantly more positive for the Proclear® MFCL Distance lens and significantly more negative for the Proclear® MFCL Near lens. In the presbyopic group, the correlation of total MFCL decentration with vision variables was weak (r<|0.191|). Conversely, a moderate but significant correlation with total MFCL decentration was found in the non-presbyopic group for most of the vision variables, indicating a decrease in vision as decentration increased.ConclusionCertain MFCLs decentered more than others; the same lens designs also induced significant amounts of third-order aberrations. An association between MFCL decentration and seven out of nine vision variables was found in the non-presbyopic group, ie, the group where lenses were most decentered, which had larger pupils and lower levels of inherent third-order aberrations.

show abstract

“…These multifocal corrections aim at restoring the near vision functionality lost in the presbyopic eye, while still correcting vision at far. Different studies [ 3 – 6 ] in presbyopic patients corrected with MCLs or MIOLs report measurements of through-focus (TF) visual performance revealing a gain at near, generally accompanied with visual degradation at far. Understanding the factors contributing to the performance of MCLs in presbyopes, including lens design, pupil diameter and residual accommodation is important to improve patient management and select the appropriate correction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in both groups, a potential detriment to the use of MCLs is the unwanted visual compromise resulting from simultaneous vision, which has been evaluated primarily in studies on presbyopic subjects [ 26 ]. To date, understandably, most studies in young adults wearing MCLs evaluate their success in controlling myopia progression [ 27 – 30 ], and only a few studies have thoroughly evaluated visual performance and visual quality with MCLs [ 3 , 31 , 32 ]. In fact, differences in visual performance with MCLs are expected to depend on several lens design factors (i.e., the power profile of the lenses, near add [ 33 , 34 ] and the patient’s optical profile, including pupil size [ 34 , 35 ] and optical aberrations).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual performance with multifocal lenses in young adults and presbyopes

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A better understanding of visual performance with Multifocal Contact Lenses (MCLs) is essential, both in young eyes, where MCLs may be prescribed to control the progression of myopia wherein the MCLs optics interact with accommodation, and in presbyopes, where MCLs are increasingly used to compensate the lack of accommodation. In this study, we evaluated the through focus visual acuity (TFVA) with center-near MCLs of three additions (low, medium and high) and without an addition (NoLens) in 10 young adults and 5 presbyopes. We studied the effect of accommodation, age and pupil diameter (in cyclopleged subjects) on visual performance. The MCLs produced a small but consistent degradation at far (by 0.925 logMAR, averaged across eyes and conditions) and a consistent benefit at near in young subjects with paralyzed accommodation (by 1.025 logMAR), and in presbyopes with both paralyzed and natural accommodation (by 1.071 logMAR, on average). TFVA in young adults with NoLens and all MCLs showed statistically significant differences (Wilcoxan, p<0.01) between natural and paralyzed accommodation, but not in presbyopes with MCLs. In young adults, VA improved with increasing pupil diameter with the HighAdd MCL (0.08 logMAR shift from 3 to 5-mm pupil size). Visual imbalance (standard deviation of VA across distances) was reduced with MCLs, and decreased significantly with increasing near add. The lowest imbalance occurred in young adults under natural accommodation and was further reduced by 13.33% with MCLs with respect to the NoLens condition. Overall, the visual performance with MCLs in young adults exceeds that in presbyopes at all distances, and was better than 0.00 logMAR over the dioptric range tested. In conclusion, the center-near lenses do not degrade the near high contrast visual acuity significantly but maintains the far vision in young adults, and produce some visual benefit at near in presbyopes.

show abstract

Visual performance with multifocal soft contact lenses in non-presbyopic myopic eyes during an adaptation period

Cited by 12 publications

References 34 publications

2-D Peripheral image quality metrics with different types of multifocal contact lenses

2-D Peripheral image quality metrics with different types of multifocal contact lenses

Association between multifocal soft contact lens decentration and visual performance

Visual performance with multifocal lenses in young adults and presbyopes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About