Exploring the optimum step size for defocus curves

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of reducing the number of visual acuity measurements made in a defocus curve on the quality of data quantified. Setting: Midland Eye, Solihull, United Kingdom. Design: Evaluation of a technique. Methods: Defocus curves were constructed by measuring visual acuity on a distance logMAR letter chart, randomizing the test letters between lens presentations. The lens powers evaluated ranged between +1.50 diopters (D) and -5.00 D in 0.50 D steps, which were also presented in a randomized order. Defocus curves were measured binocularly with the Tecnis diffractive, Rezoom refractive, Lentis rotationally asymmetric segmented (+3.00 D addition [add]), and Finevision trifocal multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) implanted bilaterally, and also for the diffractive IOL and refractive or rotationally asymmetric segmented (+3.00 D and +1.50 D adds) multifocal IOLs implanted contralaterally. Relative and absolute range of clear-focus metrics and area metrics were calculated for curves fitted using 0.50 D, 1.00 D, and 1.50 D steps and a near add-specific profile (ie, distance, half the near add, and the full near-add powers). Results: A significant difference in simulated results was found in at least 1 of the relative or absolute range of clear-focus or area metrics for each of the multifocal designs examined when the defocus-curve step size was increased (P<.05). Conclusion: Faster methods of capturing defocus curves from multifocal IOL designs appear to distort the metric results and are therefore not valid. Financial Disclosure: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned. © 2013 ASCRS and ESCRS.

Determining which factors influence the optimum multifocal contact lens correction for presbyopia

Presbyopia is a consequence of ageing and is therefore increasing inprevalence due to an increase in the ageing population. Of the many methods available to manage presbyopia, the use of contact lenses is indeed a tried and tested reversible option for those wishing to be spectacle free. Contact lens options to correct presbyopia include multifocal contact lenses and monovision.Several options have been available for many years with available guides to help choose multifocal contact lenses. However there is no comprehensive way to help the practitioner selecting the best option for an individual. An examination of the simplest way of predicting the most suitable multifocal lens for a patient will only enhance and add to the current evidence available. The purpose of the study was to determine the current use of presbyopic correction modalities in an optometric practice population in the UK and to evaluate and compare the optical performance of four silicone hydrogel soft multifocal contact lenses and to compare multifocal performance with contact lens monovision. The presbyopic practice cohort principal forms of refractive correction were distance spectacles (with near and intermediate vision providedby a variety of other forms of correction), varifocal spectacles and unaided distance with reading spectacles, with few patients wearing contact lenses as their primary correction modality. The results of the multifocal contact lens randomised controlled trial showed that there were only minor differences in corneal physiology between the lens options. Visual acuity differences were observed for distance targets, but only for low contrast letters and under mesopic lighting conditions. At closer distances between 20cm and 67cm, the defocus curves demonstrated that there were significant differences in acuity between lens designs (p < 0.001) and there was an interaction between the lens design and the level of defocus (p < 0.001). None of the lenses showed a clear near addition, perhaps due to their more aspheric rather than zoned design. As expected, stereoacuity was reduced with monovision compared with the multifocal contact lens designs, although there were some differences between the multifocal lens designs (p < 0.05). Reading speed did not differ between lens designs (F = 1.082, p = 0.368), whereas there was a significant difference in critical print size (F = 7.543, p < 0.001). Glare was quantified with a novel halometer and halo size was found to significantly differ between lenses(F = 4.101, p = 0.004). The rating of iPhone image clarity was significantly different between presbyopic corrections (p = 0.002) as was the Near Acuity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) rating of near performance (F = 3.730, p = 0.007).The pupil size did not alter with contact lens design (F = 1.614, p = 0.175), but was larger in the dominant eye (F = 5.489, p = 0.025). Pupil decentration relative to the optical axis did not alter with contact lens design (F = 0.777, p =0.542), but was also greater in the dominant eye (F = 9.917, p = 0.003). It was interesting to note that there was no difference in spherical aberrations induced between the contact lens designs (p > 0.05), with eye dominance (p > 0.05) oroptical component (ocular, corneal or internal: p > 0.05). In terms of subjective patient lens preference, 10 patients preferred monovision,12 Biofinity multifocal lens, 7 Purevision 2 for Presbyopia, 4 AirOptix multifocal and 2 Oasys multifocal contact lenses. However, there were no differences in demographic factors relating to lifestyle or personality, or physiological characteristics such as pupil size or ocular aberrations as measured at baseline,which would allow a practitioner to identify which lens modality the patient would prefer. In terms of the performance of patients with their preferred lens, it emerged that Biofinity multifocal lens preferring patients had a better high contrast acuity under photopic conditions, maintained their reading speed at smaller print sizes and subjectively rated iPhone clarity as better with this lens compared with the other lens designs trialled. Patients who preferred monovision had a lower acuity across a range of distances and a larger area of glare than those patients preferring other lens designs that was unexplained by the clinical metrics measured. However, it seemed that a complex interaction of aberrations may drive lens preference. New clinical tests or more diverse lens designs which may allow practitioners to prescribe patients the presbyopic contact lens option that will work best for them first time remains a hope for the future.

The design of contact lens based ocular drug delivery systems for single-day use:part (I) structural factors, surrogate ophthalmic dyes and passive diffusion studies

The poor retention and efficacy of instilled drops as a means of delivering drugs to the ophthalmic environment is well-recognised. The potential value of contact lenses as a means of ophthalmic drug delivery, and consequent improvement of pre-corneal retention is one obvious route to the development of a more effective ocular delivery system. Furthermore, the increasing availability and clinical use of daily disposable contact lenses provides the platform for the development of viable single-day use drug delivery devices based on existing materials and lenses. In order to provide a basis for the effective design of such devices, a systematic understanding of the factors affecting the interaction of individual drugs with the lens matrix is required. Because a large number of potential structural variables are involved, it is necessary to achieve some rationalisation of the parameters and physicochemical properties (such as molecular weight, charge, partition coefficients) that influence drug interactions. Ophthalmic dyes and structurally related compounds based on the same core structure were used to investigate these various factors and the way in which they can be used in concert to design effective release systems for structurally different drugs. Initial studies of passive diffusional release form a necessary precursor to the investigation of the features of the ocular environment that over-ride this simple behaviour. Commercially available contact lenses of differing structural classifications were used to study factors affecting the uptake of the surrogate actives and their release under 'passive' conditions. The interaction between active and lens material shows considerable and complex structure dependence, which is not simply related to equilibrium water content. The structure of the polymer matrix itself was found to have the dominant controlling influence on active uptake; hydrophobic interaction with the ophthalmic dye playing a major role. © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.