Efficacy of a gas permeable contact lens to induce peripheral myopic defocus

Purpose. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the potential of a novel custom-designed rigid gas permeable (RGP) contact lens to modify the relative peripheral refractive error in a sample of myopic patients. Methods. Fifty-two right eyes of 52 myopic patients (mean [TSD] age, 21 [T2] years) with spherical refractive errors ranging from j0.75 to j8.00 diopters (D) and refractive astigmatism of 1.00 D or less were fitted with a novel experimental RGP (ExpRGP) lens designed to create myopic defocus in the peripheral retina. A standard RGP (StdRGP) lens was used as a control in the same eye. The relative peripheral refractive error was measured without the lens and with each of two lenses (StdRGP and ExpRGP) using an open-field autorefractometer from 30 degrees nasal to 30 degrees temporal, in 5-degree steps. The effectiveness of the lens design was evaluated as the amount of relative peripheral refractive error difference induced by the ExpRGP compared with no lens and with StdRGP conditions at 30 degrees in the nasal and temporal (averaged) peripheral visual fields. Results. Experimental RGP lens induced a significant change in relative peripheral refractive error compared with the nolens condition (baseline), beyond the 10 degrees of eccentricity to the nasal and temporal side of the visual field (p G 0.05). The maximum effect was achieved at 30 degrees. Wearing the ExpRGP lens, 60% of the eyes had peripheral myopia exceeding j1.00 D, whereas none of the eyes presented with this feature at baseline. There was no significant correlation (r = 0.04; p = 0.756) between the degree of myopia induced at 30 degrees of eccentricity of the visual field with the ExpRGP lens and the baseline refractive error. Conclusions. Custom-designed RGP contact lenses can generate a significant degree of relative peripheral myopia in myopic patients regardless of their baselin spherical equivalent refractive error.

Peripheral refraction with eye and head rotation with contact lenses

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of eye and head rotation in the measurement of peripheral refraction with an open-field autorefractometer in myopic eyes wearing two different center-distance designs of multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs). Methods: Nineteen right eyes from 19 myopic patients (average central M ± SD = −2.67 ± 1.66 D) aged 20–27 years (mean ± SD = 23.2 ± 3.3 years) were evaluated using a Grand-Seiko autorefractometer. Patients were fitted with one multifocal aspheric center-distance contact lens (Biofinity Multifocal D®) and with one multi-concentric MFCL (Acuvue Oasys for Presbyopia). Axial and peripheral refraction were evaluated by eye rotation and by head rotation under naked eye condition and with each MFCL fitted randomly and in independent sessions. Results: For the naked eye, refractive pattern (M, J0 and J45) across the central 60◦ of the horizontal visual field values did not show significant changes measured by rotating the eye or rotating the head (p > 0.05). Similar results were obtained wearing the Biofinity D, for both testing methods, no obtaining significant differences to M, J0 and J45 values (p > 0.05). For Acuvue Oasys for presbyopia, also no differences were found when comparing measurements obtained by eye and head rotation (p > 0.05). Multivariate analysis did not showed a significant interaction between testing method and lens type neither with measuring locations (MANOVA, p > 0.05). There were significant differences in M and J0 values between naked eyes and each MFCL. Conclusion: Measurements of peripheral refraction by rotating the eye or rotating the head in myopic patients wearing dominant design or multi-concentric multifocal silicone hydrogel contact lens are comparable.

Light-distortion analysis as a possible indicator of visual quality after refractive lens exchange with diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses

METHODS: Refractive lens exchange was performed with implantation of an AT Lisa 839M (trifocal) or 909MP (bifocal toric) IOL, the latter if corneal astigmatism was more than 0.75 diopter (D). The postoperative visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated. A prototype light-distortion analyzer was used to quantify the postoperative light-distortion indices. A control group of eyes in which a Tecnis ZCB00 1-piece monofocal IOL was implanted had the same examinations. RESULTS: A trifocal or bifocal toric IOL was implanted in 66 eyes. The control IOL was implanted in 18 eyes. All 3 groups obtained a significant improvement in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) (P < .001) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (P Z .001). The mean uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) was 0.123 logMAR with the trifocal IOL and 0.130 logMAR with the bifocal toric IOL. The residual refractive cylinder was less than 1.00 D in 86.7% of cases with the toric IOL. The mean light-distortion index was significantly higher in the multifocal IOL groups than in the monofocal group (P < .001), although no correlation was found between the light-distortion index and CDVA. CONCLUSIONS: The multifocal IOLs provided excellent UDVA and functional UNVA despite increased light-distortion indices. The light-distortion analyzer reliably quantified a subjective component of vision distinct from visual acuity; it may become a useful adjunct in the evaluation of visual quality obtained with multifocal IOLs.