Optical power distribution of refractive and aspheric multifocal contact lenses: Effect of pupil size.

PURPOSE To evaluate the power profile within the optic zone of different designs of multifocal contact lenses (CLs) and to analyze how the effect of pupil size could impact on their optical performance. METHODS The optical power distribution within the optic zones of multifocal CLs was measured by the Nimo TR1504 (LAMBDA-X, Belgium). The multifocal CLs under study were the Acuvue Bifocal, the Acuvue Oasys for Presbyopia, the PureVision Multifocal and the PureVision 2 for Presbyopia. Each design was considered in all their available addition powers. All lenses had a nominal power of -3.0D. At the same time, three lenses of each model were considered and five consecutive readings of each lens were performed. RESULTS The results show that the PureVision Multifocal and the PureVision 2 for Presbyopia have aspheric power profiles. Both designs showed aspheric center-near designs with a smoother progression of the optical power in the PureVision 2 for Presbyopia. The Acuvue Bifocal and the Acuvue Oasys for Presbyopia are shown to have concentric alternating near and far zones. Apart from the refractive rings, the Acuvue Oasys for Presbyopia showed an increase in negative (or less positive) values toward the periphery of the lens. CONCLUSIONS Besides the refraction, the knowledge of the power profiles of multifocal CLs and the effect of pupil size on the optical distribution of these lenses could be crucial to understand the performance of these designs when they are fitted.

[1]  R. Montés-Micó,et al.  Visual Performance of a Multifocal Toric Soft Contact Lens , 2012, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[2]  D D Koch,et al.  Pupillary size and responsiveness. Implications for selection of a bifocal intraocular lens. , 1991, Ophthalmology.

[3]  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.

[4]  L Stark,et al.  Topology of the near response triad , 1990, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[5]  Lawrence Start.  Presbyopia: Recent Research and Reviews from the Third International Symposium , 1987 .

[6]  Robert Montés-Micó,et al.  Age‐related changes in the human visual system and prevalence of refractive conditions in patients attending an eye clinic , 2008, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[7]  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.

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

[9]  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.

[10]  Luc Joannes,et al.  The reproducibility of a new power mapping instrument based on the phase shifting schlieren method for the measurement of spherical and toric contact lenses. , 2010, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

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

[12]  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.

[13]  Luc Joannes,et al.  Phase-shifting schlieren: high-resolution quantitative schlieren that uses the phase-shifting technique principle. , 2003, Applied optics.

[14]  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.

[15]  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.

[16]  R. Montés-Micó,et al.  Changes in Accommodative Responses with Multifocal Contact Lenses: A Pilot Study , 2011, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[17]  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.

[18]  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.

[19]  Austin Roorda,et al.  Comparison of spherical aberration and small‐pupil profiles in improving depth of focus for presbyopic corrections , 2012, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[20]  R. Montés-Micó,et al.  Visual Comparison of an Artificial Pupil Contact Lens to Monovision , 2012, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[21]  Robert Montés-Micó,et al.  In vitro power profiles of multifocal simultaneous vision contact lenses. , 2014, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[22]  Alison G Abraham,et al.  The new epidemiology of cataract. , 2006, Ophthalmology clinics of North America.

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