Optical Performance of Multifocal Soft Contact Lenses via a Single-Pass Method

Bakaraju, Ravi C.; Ehrmann, Klaus; Falk, Darrin; Ho, Arthur; Papas, Eric

doi:10.1097/opx.0b013e318264f3e9

Cited by 15 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The acuity measured with MonoV ranged from just one letter better to more than one line better than that measured with MF. 19,20 The overall better visual acuity results with MonoV are consistent with previous reports in the literature. The greatest acuity improvement for MonoV over MF (one line or more) was for near acuity, with low contrast and low room illumination.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Visual Performance of a Multifocal Contact Lens versus Monovision in Established Presbyopes

Woods

Fonn³

2015

Optometry and Vision Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Visual Performance of a Multifocal Contact Lens versus Monovision in Established Presbyopes

Woods

Fonn³

2015

Optometry and Vision Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nominally, simultaneous viewing of in‐focus and out‐of‐focus images must degrade vision by reducing retinal image contrast, with the extent of contrast loss being upon the relative amounts of in‐focus to out‐of‐focus light incident onto the retina. This balance is known to depend on interaction of light‐dependent changes in pupil diameter with lens design . Since centre‐near designs provide greater power in the lens centre (see Figure ), due to the negative spherical aberration, it is expected that smaller pupils, associated with near vision, will result in enhanced visual acuity at near, especially when high addition lenses are used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multifocal designs involve a progressive, rotationally symmetric, gradation of power from the centre to the edge of the lens optical zone. This is achieved by the use of one or more aspheric surfaces, which produce greater power either in the lens centre (centre‐near) or in the periphery (centre‐distance) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is achieved by the use of one or more aspheric surfaces, which produce greater power either in the lens centre (centrenear) or in the periphery (centre-distance). [10][11][12][13][14] Any variation of zonal power is equivalent to spherical aberration. In effect, multifocality is accomplished in soft aspheric contact lenses by incorporating controlled spherical aberration: negative in centre-near and positive in centre-distance designs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…DOF is increased. 5,12,[15][16][17][18] However, an intriguing inter-individual variability in subjective tolerance has been observed, which may be attributed to inherent optical factors, such as pupil size, 11,19 higher-order ocular aberrations, 12,20-22 binocular summation 23 and personality characteristics, such as tolerance to blur 24 and anxiety. 25 One higher-order ocular aberration that might be expected to be particularly important in relation to multifocal contact lens (MFCL) performance is spherical aberration since, depending upon its sign, it may enhance or reduce the effects of the lenticular spherical aberration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Through‐focus performance with multifocal contact lenses: effect of binocularity, pupil diameter and inherent ocular aberrations

Plainis

Ntzilepis

Atchison

et al. 2012

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of the wearer's pupil size and spherical aberration on visual performance with centre-near, aspheric multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs). The advantage of binocular over monocular vision was also investigated. Methods: Twelve young volunteers, with an average age of 27 ± 5 years, participated in the study. LogMAR Visual Acuity (VA) was measured under cycloplegia for a range of defocus levels (from +3.0 to À3.0 D, in 0.5 D steps) with no correction and with three aspheric MFCLs (Air Optix Aqua Multifocal) with a centrenear design, providing correction for 'Low', 'Med' and 'High' near demands. Measurements were performed for all combinations of the following conditions: (1) artificial pupils of 6 and 3 mm diameter, (2) binocular and monocular (dominant eye) vision. Depth-of-focus (DOF) was calculated from the VA vs defocus curves. Ocular aberrations under cycloplegia were measured using iTrace. Results: VA at À3.0 D defocus (simulating near performance) was statistically higher for the 3 mm than for the 6 mm pupil (p = 0.006), and for binocular rather than for monocular vision (p < 0.001). Similarly, DOF was better for the 3 mm pupil (p = 0.002) and for binocular viewing conditions (p < 0.001). Both VA at À3.0 D defocus and DOF increased as the 'addition' of the MFCL correction increased. Finally, with the centre-near MFCLs a linear correlation was found between VA at À3.0 D defocus and the wearer's ocular spherical aberration (R 2 = 0.20 p < 0.001 for 6 mm data), with the eyes exhibiting the higher positive spherical aberration experiencing worse VAs. By contrast, no correlation was found between VA and spherical aberration at 0.00 D defocus (distance vision). Conclusions: Both near VA and depth-of-focus improve with these MFCLs, with the effects being more pronounced for small pupils and for binocular rather than monocular vision. Coupling of the wearer's ocular spherical aberration with the aberration profiles provided by MFCLs affects their functionality.

show abstract

Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs. two commercial multifocals: Part 1. Optical performance evaluation via computed through-focus retinal image quality metrics

Bakaraju

Ehrmann

2018

Journal of Optometry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo compare the computed optical performance of prototype lenses designed using deliberate manipulation of higher-order spherical aberrations to extend depth-of-focus (EDOF) with two commercial multifocals.MethodsEmmetropic, presbyopic, schematic eyes were coupled with prototype EDOF and commercial multifocal lenses (Acuvue Oasys for presbyopia, AOP, Johnson & Johnson & Air Optix Aqua multifocal, AOMF, Alcon). For each test configuration, the through-focus retinal image quality (TFRIQ) values were computed over 21 vergences, ranging from −0.50 to 2.00 D, in 0.125 D steps. Analysis was performed considering eyes with three different inherent aberration profiles: five different pupils and five different lens decentration levels.ResultsExcept the LOW design, the AOP lenses offered ‘bifocal’ like TFRIQ performance. Lens performance was relatively independent to pupil and aberrations but not centration. Contrastingly, AOMF demonstrated distance centric performance, most dominant in LOW followed by MED and HIGH designs. AOMF lenses were the most sensitive to pupil, aberrations and centration. The prototypes demonstrated a ‘lift-off’ in the TFRIQ performance, particularly at intermediate and near, without trading performance at distance. When compared with AOP and AOMF, EDOF lenses demonstrated reduced sensitivity to pupil, aberrations and centration.ConclusionWith the through focus retinal image quality as the gauge of optical performance, we demonstrated that the prototype EDOF designs were less susceptible to variations in pupil, inherent ocular aberrations and decentration, compared to the commercial designs. To ascertain whether these incremental improvements translate to a clinically palpable outcome requires investigation through human trials.

show abstract

Optical Performance of Multifocal Soft Contact Lenses via a Single-Pass Method

Abstract: Direct measurement of single-pass images at the retinal plane of a physical model eye used in conjunction with various MFCLs is demonstrated. This method may have utility in evaluating the relative effectiveness of commercial and prototype designs.

Cited by 15 publications

References 38 publications

Visual Performance of a Multifocal Contact Lens versus Monovision in Established Presbyopes

Visual Performance of a Multifocal Contact Lens versus Monovision in Established Presbyopes

Through‐focus performance with multifocal contact lenses: effect of binocularity, pupil diameter and inherent ocular aberrations

Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs. two commercial multifocals: Part 1. Optical performance evaluation via computed through-focus retinal image quality metrics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About