Visual Comparison of Multifocal Contact Lens to Monovision

Purpose. To compare visual function with the Bausch & Lomb PureVision multifocal contact lens to monovision with PureVision single vision contact lenses. Methods. Twenty presbyopic subjects were fitted with either the PureVision multifocal contact lens or monovision with PureVision single vision lenses. After a 1-month trial, the following assessments of visual function were made: (a) distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (VA); (b) reading ability; (c) distance and near contrast sensitivity function (CSF); (d) near range of clear vision; (e) stereoacuity; and (f) subjective evaluation of near vision ability with a standardized questionnaire. Subjects were then refitted with the alternative correction and the procedure was repeated. All measurements were compared between the two corrections, whereas the “low addition” multifocal lens was also compared with the “high addition” alternative. Results. Distance and near VA were significantly better with monovision than with the multifocal option (p < 0.05). Intermediate VA (p = 0.13) was similar with both corrections, whereas there was also no significant difference in distance and near CSF (p = 0.29 on both occasions). Reading speeds (p = 0.48) and the critical print size (p = 0.90) were not significantly different between the two contact lens corrections, but stereoacuity (p < 0.01) and the near range of clear vision (p < 0.05) were significantly better with the multifocal option than with monovision. Subjective assessment of near ability was similar for both types of contact lens (p = 0.52). The high addition multifocal lens produced significantly poorer distance and near CSF, near VA, and critical print size compared with the low addition alternative. Conclusions. Monovision performed better than a center-near aspheric simultaneous vision multifocal contact lens of the same material for distance and near VA only. The multifocal option provides better stereoacuity and near range of clear vision, with little differences in CSF, so a better balance of real-world visual function may be achieved due to minimal binocular disruption.

[1]  P. Erickson,et al.  Stereopsis in Presbyopes Wearing Monovision and Simultaneous Vision Bifocal Contact Lenses , 1988, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[2]  B Wick,et al.  Factors influencing success of monovision contact lens fitting: survey of contact lens diplomates. , 2000, Optometry.

[3]  R. Hays,et al.  Associations of presbyopia with vision-targeted health-related quality of life. , 2004, Archives of ophthalmology.

[4]  I L Bailey,et al.  Repeatability of Visual Acuity Measurement , 1998, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[5]  Ping Situ,et al.  Successful Monovision Contact Lens Wearers Refitted With Bifocal Contact Lenses , 2003, Eye & contact lens.

[6]  Brenner Mb.  An objective and subjective comparative analysis of diffractive and front surface aspheric contact lens designs used to correct presbyopia. , 1994 .

[7]  Josephson Je,et al.  Monovision vs. aspheric bifocal contact lenses: a crossover study. , 1987 .

[8]  J. Sloper,et al.  Effect of age on adult stereoacuity as measured by different types of stereotest , 2005, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[9]  J E Sheedy,et al.  Does the presbyopic visual system adapt to contact lenses? , 1993, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[10]  V. Lakshminarayanan,et al.  Contrast sensitivity with presbyopic contact lenses , 2007 .

[11]  Nathan Efron,et al.  A decade of contact lens prescribing trends in the United Kingdom (1996-2005). , 2006, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[12]  J E Sheedy,et al.  Task and Visual Performance with Concentric Bifocal Contact Lenses , 1991, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[13]  I G Cox,et al.  Effects of sighting and sensory dominance on monovision high and low contrast visual acuity. , 1990, The CLAO journal : official publication of the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, Inc.

[14]  S. Jain,et al.  Success of monovision in presbyopes: review of the literature and potential applications to refractive surgery. , 1996, Survey of ophthalmology.

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

[16]  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.

[17]  P Erickson,et al.  Patterns of Binocular Suppression and Accommodation in Monovision , 1988, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[18]  A P Ginsburg,et al.  A New Contrast Sensitivity Vision Test Chart , 1984, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[19]  Jan E. Lovie-Kitchin,et al.  Repeatability and Intercorrelations of Standard Vision Tests as a Function of Age , 2000, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[20]  Bruce J W Evans,et al.  Monovision: a review , 2007, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[21]  J. Wolffsohn,et al.  Is randomisation necessary for measuring defocus curves in pre-presbyopes? , 2007, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[22]  M. Brenner.  An objective and subjective comparative analysis of diffractive and front surface aspheric contact lens designs used to correct presbyopia. , 1994, The CLAO journal : official publication of the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, Inc.

[23]  J. Sheedy,et al.  Patient response to concentric bifocal contact lenses. , 1991, Journal of the American Optometric Association.

[24]  P. Romano,et al.  Stereoacuity degradation by experimental and real monocular and binocular amblyopia. , 1985, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[25]  Brian Brown,et al.  Contrast sensitivity with contact lens corrections for presbyopia , 1989, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[26]  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.

[27]  G E Legge,et al.  Tolerance to visual defocus. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[28]  Clifton Schor,et al.  Ocular Dominance and the Interocular Suppression of Blur in Monovision , 1987, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[29]  Silvia W. Zandvoort,et al.  Good subjective presbyopic correction with newly designed aspheric multifocal contact lens , 1993, International Ophthalmology.

[30]  G N JESSEN.  Bifocal contact lenses. , 1960, The British journal of physiological optics.

[31]  J. Wolffsohn,et al.  Development of a near activity visual questionnaire to assess accommodating intraocular lenses. , 2007, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[32]  P Erickson,et al.  Visual Function with Presbyopic Contact Lens Correction , 1990, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[33]  P Erickson.  Potential range of clear vision in monovision. , 1988, Journal of the American Optometric Association.