Disk halo size measured in individuals with monofocal versus diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses

PURPOSE: To compare disk halo size in response to a glare source in eyes with an aspheric apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) or aspheric monofocal IOL. SETTING: Rementeria Ophthalmological Clinic, Madrid, Spain. DESIGN: Prospective randomized masked study. METHOD: Halo radius was measured using a vision monitor (MonCv3) with low-luminance optotypes in eyes that had cataract surgery and bilateral implantion of an Acrysof Restor SN6AD1 multifocal IOL or Acrysof IQ monofocal IOL 6 to 9 months previously. The visual angle subtended by the disk halo radius was calculated in minutes of arc (arcmin). Patient complaints of halo disturbances were recorded. Monocular uncorrected distance visual acutity (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were measured using high-contrast (96%) and low-contrast (10%) logMAR letter charts. RESULTS: The study comprised 39 eyes of 39 subjects (aged 70 to 80 years); 21 eyes had a multifocal IOL and 18 eyes a monofocal IOL. The mean halo radius was 35 arcmin larger in the multifocal IOL group than the monofocal group (P<.05). Greater halo effects were reported in the multifocal IOL group (P<.05). The mean monocular high-contrast UDVA and low-contrast UDVA did not vary significantly between groups, whereas the mean monocular high-contrast CDVA and low-contrast CDVA were significantly worse at 0.12 logMAR and 0.13 logMAR in the multifocal than in the monofocal IOL group, respectively (P <.01). A significant positive correlation was detected by multiple linear regression between the halo radius and low-contrast UDVA in the multifocal IOL group (r = 0.72, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The diffractive multifocal IOL gave rise to a larger disk halo size, which was correlated with a worse low-contrast UDVA.

Contrast sensitivity evaluation with filter contact lenses in patients with retinitis pigmentosa: a pilot study

Purpose: the aim of this pilot study was to test whether retinitis pigmentosa patients would benefit from filter contact lenses as an effective optical aid against glare and photophobia. Methods: fifteen subjects with retinitis pigmentosa were enrolled in this study. All of them were evaluated with filter soft contact lenses (MaxSight), filter glasses (CPF 527) and without filters (control). All patients were assessed for the three aid conditions by means of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity (without glare and with central and peripheral glare)(CSV-1000) and a specific subjective questionnaire about quality of vision. Results: BCVA was slightly better with filters than without filter but the differences were not statistically significant. Contrast sensitivity without glare improved significantly with the contact lenses (p<0.05). The central glare had significant differences for the frequencies of 3 cpd and 18 cpd between the contact lens filter and the control group (p=0.021 and p=0.044, respectively). For the peripheral glare contrast sensitivity improved with contact lens versus control group for highest frequencies, 12 and 18 cpd (p<0.001 and p=0.045, respectively). According to the questionnaire the contact lens filter gave them more visual comfort than the glasses filter under the scenarios of indoors glare, outdoors activities and indoors comfort. Conclusion: the filter contact lenses seem to be a good option to improve the quality of vision of patients with retinitis pigmentosa.