Visual performance of three disposable soft contact lenses

Watanabe, Ronald; Ridder, William H.; Tomlinson, Alan

doi:10.1016/0892-8967(93)90126-c

Cited by 9 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…37,59 Lastly, the use of soft contact lenses promotes dry eye symptomatology, being blurry and changeable vision symptoms commonly reported by contact lens wearers. 70 Also, ocular dryness and poorer optical quality induced by soft contact lenses movement decrease optical quality, 71,72 which have showed a positive association with accommodative lag and fluctuations. 73 This possibility should be explored in future investigations.…”

Section: A Plausible Explanation For the Present Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Optical Correction Method on the Magnitude and Variability of Accommodative Response: A Test-retest Study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SIGNIFICANCE The present study addresses the accommodative response and its dependence on the type of optical correction used. The results are discussed relative to their possible implications for myopia progression and visual fatigue. PURPOSE The accommodative response has been investigated owing to its possible relationship with the onset and progression of myopia and visual fatigue. This study explored the influence of wearing soft contact lenses in comparison with spectacles in terms of magnitude and variability of accommodation. In addition, we analyzed the intersession and intermethod repeatability. METHODS Dynamic accommodative response was recorded during 30-second epochs, at five different distances (50, 40, 33, 25, and 20 cm), in 21 individuals (mean refractive error ± SD, −0.79 ± 1.39 D) while wearing either soft contact lenses or spectacles on two different days. To assess repeatability, a second identical intervention was conducted. RESULTS Higher lags of accommodation were obtained with the use of soft contact lenses in comparison with the spectacle condition (P = .04, partial η2 [ηp 2] = 0.204), and similarly, a higher variability of accommodation at near distances was found during the soft contact lens measurement (P < .001, ηp 2 = 0.647). There was a strong intersession repeatability at all the distances tested for both optical correction methods. CONCLUSIONS The higher accommodative lag and fluctuations found while wearing soft contact lenses in comparison with spectacles may help to understand the mechanisms underlying myopia progression and asthenopia. These findings may be also considered when testing the accommodative response in research settings. Our test-retest design confirmed that there is a very good intersession repeatability for all the distances in both optical correction methods.

show abstract