Effects of eye rotation and contact lens decentration on horizontal peripheral refraction

Jaisankar, Durgasri; Leube, Alexander; Gifford, Kate; Schmid, Katrina L.; Atchison, David A.

doi:10.1111/opo.12641

Cited by 11 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The gradual shift toward yellow colours at near distances reveals increasing accommodative lags. When measured off‐axis (bottom series of maps), the axial separation of the CL optics and the eye’s entrance pupil causes the parallax shift of the CL centre, introducing more peripheral CL optics in front of the pupil 29–31 . The off‐axis optics in combination with parallax introduce more complex defocus patterns across the pupil due to oblique astigmatism and coma associated with off‐axis optics 32,33 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retinal defocus in myopes wearing dual‐focus zonal contact lenses

Singh

Meyer

Jaskulski

et al. 2021

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the refractive impact of dual‐focus (DF) myopia control contact lenses (CLs) on accommodating young myopic adults. Methods Phase 1: accommodative accuracy was assessed in 40 myopic participants. Phase 2: a subset of four subjects who demonstrated accurate accommodation and six who chronically underaccommodated were fitted with single vision (SV, Proclear 1 day) and centre‐distance DF myopia control CLs (MiSight 1 day) with approximately +2.00 D of additional power in two surrounding annular zones. While binocularly viewing high contrast characters at 4.00, 1.00, 0.50, 0.33, 0.25 and 0.20 m, aberrometry data were captured across the central ±30° of the horizontal retina. Local refractive errors were pooled for each area of the pupil covered by the central distance or first annular defocus zone of the DF CLs. Results In the “good” accommodator group fitted with SV CLs, accommodative lags were generally absent except at the closest viewing distance (mean errors: −0.09 ± 0.22 D, −0.12 ± 0.26 D, −0.05 ± 0.37 D and +0.38 ± 0.54 D for −2.00, −3.00, −4.00 and −5.00 D target vergences, respectively) but significantly larger in the “poor” accommodating participants (+0.81 ± 0.21 D, +0.97 ± 0.27 D, +1.18 ± 0.39 D, +1.47 ± 0.55 D). For most viewing distances, hyperopic defocus observed in the region of the pupil covered by the first annular zone was replaced with myopic defocus when fitted with the DF CLs. Myopic defocus created by the first annular region was present across the central 30° of the retina. Conclusions Some young adult myopes chronically experience high levels of hyperopic defocus when viewing near targets, which was replaced by myopic defocus in the annular part of the pupil covered by the treatment zones when fitted with a centre‐distance myopia control DF CL.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retinal defocus in myopes wearing dual‐focus zonal contact lenses

Singh

Meyer

Jaskulski

et al. 2021

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This reduction in plus power is an important observation that provides an explanation for reported hyperopic retinal defocus in some studies using this lens 14,26 . In a study by Jaisankar et al , 14 as expected for centre‐distance multifocal contact lenses, they showed an increase in relative peripheral myopia out to 20 degrees.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…This reduction in plus power is an important observation that provides an explanation for reported hyperopic retinal defocus in some studies using this lens. 14,26 In a study by Jaisankar et al, 14 as expected for centre-distance multifocal contact lenses, they showed an increase in relative peripheral myopia out to 20 degrees. However, on the nasal visual field (temporal retina), there is a marked increase in relative peripheral hyperopia, attaining a maximum value of +2.00D at the 35-degree eccentricity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Several researchers have measured the changes in retinal defocus with multifocal contact lenses to better understand their effect on the peripheral refraction profile 13–15 . Most studies show a myopic change in relative peripheral refraction with centre‐distance multifocal contact lenses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 Several researchers have measured the changes in retinal defocus with multifocal contact lenses to better understand their effect on the peripheral refraction profile. [13][14][15] Most studies show a myopic change in relative peripheral refraction with centre-distance multifocal contact lenses. This is expected because the added plus power in the periphery of these lenses cause a myopic shift in peripheral refraction relative to central refraction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Power profiles of centre–distance multifocal soft contact lenses

Nti

Ritchey

Berntsen

2020

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Centre‐distance multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs) for myopia control are thought to slow myopia progression by providing both clear foveal vision and myopic defocus. Characterising the power profile of lenses is important to understanding their possible effects on retinal defocus when worn. The power profiles of three commercially available MFCLs were determined. Methods Three centre‐distance MFCL designs were studied: Biofinity Multifocal D +2.50 add (comfilcon A), Proclear Multifocal D +2.50 add (omafilcon A), and NaturalVue Multifocal (etafilcon A). Two lenses each in power from −1.00D to −6.00D in 1D steps were stored in ISO 18369‐3:2017 standard phosphate buffered saline for 24 h. Optical power profiles were measured in a wet cell with the SHSOphthalmic profiler accounting for centre thickness and manufacturer‐reported material refractive index. Sagittal power maps from the SHSOphthalmic were exported, and custom MATLAB code was used to generate power profiles by averaging along the vertical and horizontal meridians. One‐way anova with Tukey’s HSD post‐hoc t‐tests were used to analyse maximum add power by lens design. Results Plus power increased out from the lens centre for all three MFCLs. Power profiles of Biofinity D and Proclear D MFCLs show three distinct areas within the optic zone; the distance zone (from lens centre to about 1.6 mm radius), intermediate zone (about 1.6 mm radius to 2.1 mm) and near zone (about 2 mm radius to 4 mm). For NaturalVue MFCLs, plus power starts increasing almost immediately from the lens centre, reaching maximum measured mean plus power at a radius of 2.7 mm. From 2.7 mm to 3.0 mm, there was a decrease in plus power, which was then generally maintained out to the optic zone edge. Across all lens powers, maximum add power was highest with the NaturalVue MFCL (+3.32 ± 0.44D), then Proclear D (+1.84 ± 0.28D) and Biofinity D (+1.47 ± 0.34D) MFCLs (all p < 0.04). Add power peaked at different locations for different lens powers and designs. Conclusions Power profiles of MFCLs vary based on lens design and power. These power profiles are consistent with reported myopic and hyperopic changes in peripheral refraction with MFCLs and provide some explanation for reported differences in peripheral refraction with these MFCLs. Further work is needed to determine whether these power profile differences influence myopia progression.

show abstract