Short-term visual performance of soft multifocal contact lenses for presbyopia.

PURPOSE To compare visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity, stereopsis, and subjective visual performance of Acuvue® Oasys® for Presbyopia (AOP), Air Optix® Aqua Multifocal (AOMF), and Air Optix® Aqua Single Vision (AOSV) lenses in patients with presbyopia. METHODS A single-blinded crossover trial was conducted. Twenty patients with mild presbyopia (add ≤+1.25 D) and 22 with moderate/severe presbyopia (add ≥+1.50 D) who wore lenses bilaterally for 1 h, with a minimum overnight washout period between the use of each lens. Measurements included high- and low-contrast visual acuity (HCVA and LCVA, respectively) at a distance, contrast sensitivity (CS) at a distance, HCVA at intermediate (70 cm) and near (50 cm & 40 cm) distances, stereopsis, and subjective questionnaires regarding vision clarity, ghosting, overall vision satisfaction, and comfort. The test variables were compared among the lens types using repeated-measures ANOVA. RESULTS Distance variables (HCVA, LCVA, and CS) were significantly worse with multifocal lens than with AOSV lens (p≤0.008), except for AOMF lens in the mild presbyopia group in which no significant difference was observed (p>0.05). Multifocal lenses had significantly greater HCVA at 40 cm than AOSV lens (p≤0.026). AOMF lens had greater intermediate HCVA than AOP lens (p<0.03). AOP lens demonstrated greater improvements in stereopsis than AOMF and AOSV lens in the moderate/severe presbyopia group (p≤0.03). Few significant differences in subjective variables were observed, with no significant difference in the overall vision satisfaction observed between lens types (p>0.05). The proportions of patients willing to buy AOSV, AOMF, and AOP lenses were 20%, 40%, and 50%, respectively, in the mild presbyopia group and 14%, 32%, and 23%, respectively, in the moderate/severe presbyopia group; however, these differences were not statistically significant (p≥0.159). CONCLUSIONS Further development of multifocal lenses is required before significant advantages of multifocal lenses over single vision lens are observed in patients with presbyopia.

[1]  Sotiris Plainis,et al.  Power Profiles of Multifocal Contact Lenses and Their Interpretation , 2013, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[2]  J. González-Méijome,et al.  Adaptation to Multifocal and Monovision Contact Lens Correction , 2013, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[3]  Ole Ravn,et al.  International contact lens prescribing in 2014 : our 14th annual report in CLS provides information about 25,000 fits in 32 markets , 2015 .

[4]  Jan E LouieKitchin,et al.  The effect of print size on reading rate for adults and children , 1994 .

[5]  C. Hutnik,et al.  Multifocal contact lenses--look again! , 1997, Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie.

[6]  P. Morgan,et al.  An international survey of contact lens prescribing for presbyopia , 2010, Clinical & experimental optometry.

[7]  Teresa Ferrer‐Blasco,et al.  Stereoacuity with balanced presbyopic contact lenses , 2011, Clinical & experimental optometry.

[8]  E. Bennett.  Contact lens correction of presbyopia , 2008, Clinical & experimental optometry.

[9]  J. Woods,et al.  Early Symptomatic Presbyopes—What Correction Modality Works Best? , 2009, Eye & contact lens.

[10]  Anthea M Burnett,et al.  Global vision impairment due to uncorrected presbyopia. , 2008, Archives of ophthalmology.

[11]  Ping Situ,et al.  Utility of Short-Term Evaluation of Presbyopic Contact Lens Performance , 2009, Eye & contact lens.

[12]  Teresa Ferrer-Blasco,et al.  Stereoacuity with Simultaneous Vision Multifocal Contact Lenses , 2010, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[13]  Philip Cooper,et al.  Visual performance of a multi-zone bifocal and a progressive multifocal contact lens. , 2002, The CLAO journal : official publication of the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, Inc.

[14]  Arthur Ho,et al.  Physical human model eye and methods of its use to analyse optical performance of soft contact lenses. , 2010, Optics express.

[15]  Magne Helland,et al.  Demographics of international contact lens prescribing. , 2010, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[16]  Magne Helland,et al.  International contact lens prescribing in 2003 , 2009 .

[17]  Balamurali Vasudevan,et al.  Objective and subjective visual performance of multifocal contact lenses: pilot study. , 2014, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[18]  Klaus Ehrmann,et al.  Inherent Ocular Spherical Aberration and Multifocal Contact Lens Optical Performance , 2010, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[19]  P. Morgan,et al.  International contact lens prescribing , 2002 .

[20]  G. Mitchell,et al.  Comparison of Multifocal and Monovision Soft Contact Lens Corrections in Patients With Low-Astigmatic Presbyopia , 2006, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[21]  P. Allen,et al.  Increasing negative spherical aberration with soft contact lenses improves high and low contrast visual acuity in young adults , 2009, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[22]  A Back,et al.  Comparative Visual Performance of Three Presbyopic Contact Lens Corrections , 1992, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.