Spherical Soft Contact Lens Designs and Peripheral Defocus in Myopic Eyes

Abstract

Purpose Peripheral retinal defocus has been implicated in myopia progression. The effect of commercially-available spherical soft contact lenses (SCLs) on peripheral defocus of adult myopic eyes was investigated. Methods Twenty-five young adults with spherical equivalent (SE) refractions between −0.50 D and −6.00 D were enrolled. Cycloplegic autorefraction (right eye) was measured centrally and ±20°, ±30°, and ±40° from the line of sight along the horizontal meridian using an autorefractor. Four commercially-available spherical SCLs (Biofinity, Acuvue2, PureVision2, and Air Optix Night & Day Aqua) were evaluated. SE defocus (M) was used to calculate relative peripheral defocus (RPD) while wearing each SCL and relative peripheral refraction (RPR) of the uncorrected eye. Spherical aberration (SA) changes due to each SCL were measured along the line of sight by aberrometry. Peripheral defocus was analyzed using repeated-measures analyses of variance (RM-ANOVA). The association between changes in axial SA and the change in peripheral defocus was evaluated using linear mixed models. Results The mean age (±SD) and central SE refractive error were 24.0 ± 1.3 years and −3.45 ± 1.42 D, respectively. PureVision2 did not change RPD (p=0.33). Significant myopic shifts on the temporal retina were found with three lenses: Acuvue 2 (−0.29 D at 30°; −0.80 D at 40°; both p≤0.01), Biofinity (−1.21 D at 40°; p=0.02), and Air Optix Night & Day Aqua (−0.23 D at 20°, −0.48 D at 30°, and −1.50 D at 40°; all p<0.004). All SCLs caused a negative change in SA. SCLs inducing less negative (more positive) SA changes were associated with a less hyperopic change in RPD. Conclusions Spherical SCL design can influence the peripheral defocus profile experienced by a myopic eye. Several, but not all, SCLs reduced peripheral hyperopia. Differences in how SCL types influence peripheral defocus may have implications for myopia progression.

Effects of novel multifocal soft contact lens on peripheral refraction of myopic eyes when looking at distant and near targets

“…In our study, we did not find significant differences in the RPRE between SVSCLs (Biotrue ONEday SCL) and UC when looking at distant targets. Both of them exhibited hyperopia RPRE profiles in both the temporal and nasal retina, which was consistent with other single vision soft contact lenses (PureVision2[22], Bausch & Lomb, USA).The various outcome of SVSCLs are likely to be influenced by many factors, including differences in lens design (manufacturers or lens parameters), lens fit, and individual variations of the study subjects. Given the lack of consistency among the studies, adopting SVSCLs to adjust peripheral defocus does not seem to be the ideal approach.Studies generally agreed that many commercially available MFSCLs are incapable of reducing the amount of the relative peripheral hyperopia or inducing relative peripheral myopia[9,10] [26][27][28].…”

“…Backhouse et al [21] reported a highly significant shift from hyperopic RPRE to myopic RPRE when corrected with SVSCLs (Acuvue 1-Day Moist, Johnson& Johnson, USA) compared to UC. Moore et al [22] found that SVSCLs (Biofinity, CooperVision, USA; Acuvue 2, Vistakon, USA; Air Optix Night & Day Aqua, Alcon, USA) caused a myopic shift on the temporal retina at greater eccentricities in comparison with UC. Shen et al [23] reported that SVSCLs (Acuvue 2, Vistakon, USA ) reduced the degree of relative peripheral hyperopia in half compared to UC.…”

Binocular Visual Function in Orthokeratology Contact Lens Wear for Myopia

“…Moreover, a relationship between greater myopic shift in RPR and more positive SA has been demonstrated in single vision SCLs, (Moore et al 2017) and since OK induced positive SA has been shown to increase the accommodative response, (Tarrant et al 2009 this appears to reveal a similar link.…”

“…Investigation of any relationship between RPR and SA in OK wear, similar to that which has been undertaken for SCLs, (Moore et al 2017) would assist in determining how SA links RPR to accommodation, or if it is contributory to both changes observed. …”

“…(Kwok et al 2012, Moore et al 2017 The scientific interest in creating a SCL for myopia control, to mimic the SA (Cheng et al 2016) and RPR (Sankaridurg et al 2011) changes of OK, will be complicated by the inherent optics of the SCL. (Moore et al 2017) Use of commercially available multifocal SCLs for myopia control, which are designed for presbyopia, is based on the presumed mechanism of RPR change, however they have been shown not to alter RPR as significantly as OK, (Ticak and Walline 2013) and the most impressive results for myopia control using these types of presbyopia-designed lenses occurred where they were employed specifically for their 'add' power to address near esophoria, (Aller et al 2016) indicating again that binocular vision function is key to management of progressive myopia with contact lens correction. Correlations between RPR and accommodation measures were undertaken to explore this possible relationship.…”