Short-term comparison between extended depth-of-focus prototype contact lenses and a commercially-available center-near multifocal

Purpose To compare the visual performance of prototype contact lenses which extend depth-of-focus (EDOF) by deliberate manipulation of multiple higher-order spherical aberration terms and a commercially-available center-near lens (AIR OPTIX Aqua Multifocal, AOMF). Methods This was a prospective, cross-over, randomized, single-masked (participant), short-term clinical trial where 52 participants (age 45–70 years) were stratified as low, medium or high presbyopes and wore EDOF and AOMF on different days. Objective measures comprised high and low contrast visual acuity (HCVA/LCVA, log MAR), and contrast sensitivity (log units) at 6 m; HCVA at 70 cm, 50 cm and 40 cm and stereopsis (seconds of arc) at 40 cm. HCVA at 70 cm, 50 cm and 40 cm were measured as “comfortable acuity” rather than conventional resolution acuity. Subjective measures comprised clarity-of-vision and ghosting at distance, intermediate and near, overall vision satisfaction and ocular comfort (1–10 numeric rating scale) and lens purchase (yes/no response). Statistical analysis included repeated measures ANOVA, paired t-tests and McNemar's test. Results Significant differences between lens types were independent of strata (p ≥ 0.119). EDOF was significantly better than AOMF for HCVA at 40 cm (0.42 ± 0.18 vs. 0.48 ± 0.22, p = 0.024), stereopsis (98 ± 88 vs. 141 ± 114, p < 0.001), clarity-of-vision at intermediate (8.5 ± 1.6 vs. 7.7 ± 1.9, p = 0.006) and near (7.3 ± 2.5 vs. 6.2 ± 2.5, p = 0.005), lack-of-ghosting (p = 0.012), overall vision satisfaction (7.5 ± 1.7 vs. 6.4 ± 2.2, p < 0.001) and ocular comfort (9.0 ± 1.0 vs. 8.3 ± 1.7, p = 0.002). Significantly more participants chose to only-purchase EDOF (33% vs. 6%, p = 0.003).). There were no significant differences between lens types for any objective measure at 6 m or clarity-of-vision at distance (p ≥ 0.356). Conclusions EDOF provides better intermediate and near vision performance in presbyopes than AOMF with no difference for distance vision during short-term wear.

[1]  Ravi C Bakaraju,et al.  Visual performance of myopia control soft contact lenses in non-presbyopic myopes , 2018, Clinical optometry.

[2]  B. Philip,et al.  International Contact Lens Prescribing in 2017 , 2018 .

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

[4]  Schlanger Jl A study of contact lens failures. , 1993 .

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

[6]  Jill Woods,et al.  Visual Performance of a Multifocal Contact Lens versus Monovision in Established Presbyopes , 2015, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[7]  R. C. Bakaraju,et al.  Effects of relative negative spherical aberration in single vision contact lens visual performance , 2018, Clinical optometry.

[8]  Klaus Ehrmann,et al.  Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs. two commercial multifocals: Part 1. Optical performance evaluation via computed through-focus retinal image quality metrics , 2017, Journal of optometry.

[9]  N. Pritchard,et al.  Discontinuation of contact lens wear: a survey. , 1999, International contact lens clinic.

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

[11]  N. Pritchard,et al.  A multi‐centre study of lapsed contact lens wearers , 2002, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[12]  Pete S Kollbaum,et al.  Quantification of Ghosting Produced With Presbyopic Contact Lens Correction , 2012, Eye & contact lens.

[13]  J. González-Méijome,et al.  Ocular Dominance and Visual Function Testing , 2013, BioMed research international.

[14]  Ravi C. Bakaraju,et al.  Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs. two commercial multifocals: Part 2. Visual performance after 1 week of lens wear , 2017, Journal of optometry.

[15]  Lyndon Jones,et al.  The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: report of the contact lens materials, design, and care subcommittee. , 2013, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

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

[17]  P. Morgan,et al.  Contact lens correction of presbyopia. , 2009, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[18]  Robert Montés-Micó,et al.  Visual performance of two simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses , 2013, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[19]  L. Keay,et al.  Estimating a just-noticeable difference for ocular comfort in contact lens wearers. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

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

[21]  Robert Montés-Micó,et al.  Visual Performance of Four Simultaneous-Image Multifocal Contact Lenses Under Dim and Glare Conditions , 2015, Eye & contact lens.

[22]  Sotiris Plainis,et al.  Through‐focus performance with multifocal contact lenses: effect of binocularity, pupil diameter and inherent ocular aberrations , 2013, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[23]  Aruna S. Rajagopalan,et al.  Visual Performance of Subjects Wearing Presbyopic Contact Lenses , 2006, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

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

[25]  Navneet Gupta,et al.  Visual Comparison of Multifocal Contact Lens to Monovision , 2009, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[26]  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.

[27]  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 .

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

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

[30]  H. Swarbrick,et al.  Ocular aberrations and visual function with multifocal versus single vision soft contact lenses. , 2013, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[31]  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.

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

[33]  Klaus Ehrmann,et al.  Short-Term Visual Performance of Novel Extended Depth-of-Focus Contact Lenses , 2016, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[34]  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.

[35]  J. Schlanger A study of contact lens failures. , 1993, Journal of the American Optometric Association.