Visual performance of the human eye with soft hydrophilic contact lenses

The recording of visual acuity using the Snellen letter chart is only a limited measure of the visual performance of an eye wearing a refractive aid. Qualitative in addition to quantitative information is required to establish such a parameter: spatial, temporal and photometric aspects must all be incorporated into the test procedure. The literature relating to the correction of ametropia by refractive aids was reviewed. Selected aspects of a comparison between the correction provided by spectacles and contact lenses were considered. Special attention was directed to soft hydrophilic contact lenses. Despite technological advances which have produced physiologically acceptable soft lenses, there still remain associated with this recent form of refractive aid unpredictable visual factors. Several techniques for vision assessment were described, and previous studies of visual performance were discussed. To facilitate the investigation of visual performance in a clinical environment, a new semi-automated system was described: this utilized the presentation of broken ring test stimuli on a television screen. The research project comprised two stages. Initial work was concerned with the validation of the television system, including the optimization of its several operational variables. The second phase involved the utilization of the system in an investigation of visual performance aspects of the first month of regular daily soft contact lens wear by experimentally-naive subjects. On the basis of the results of this work an ‘homoeostatic’ model has been proposed to represent the strategy which an observer adopts in order to optimize his visual performance with soft contact lenses.

Use of imaging technology to better understand soft contact lens fit dynamics

The principal theme of this thesis is the identification of additional factors affecting, and consequently to better allow, the prediction of soft contact lens fit. Various models have been put forward in an attempt to predict the parameters that influence soft contact lens fit dynamics; however, the factors that influence variation in soft lens fit are still not fully understood. The investigations in this body of work involved the use of a variety of different imaging techniques to both quantify the anterior ocular topography and assess lens fit. The use of Anterior-Segment Optical Coherence Tomography (AS-OCT) allowed for a more complete characterisation of the cornea and corneoscleral profile (CSP) than either conventional keratometry or videokeratoscopy alone, and for the collection of normative data relating to the CSP for a substantial sample size. The scleral face was identified as being rotationally asymmetric, the mean corneoscleral junction (CSJ) angle being sharpest nasally and becoming progressively flatter at the temporal, inferior and superior limbal junctions. Additionally, 77% of all CSJ angles were within ±50 of 1800, demonstrating an almost tangential extension of the cornea to form the paralimbal sclera. Use of AS-OCT allowed for a more robust determination of corneal diameter than that of white-to-white (WTW) measurement, which is highly variable and dependent on changes in peripheral corneal transparency. Significant differences in ocular topography were found between different ethnicities and sexes, most notably for corneal diameter and corneal sagittal height variables. Lens tightness was found to be significantly correlated with the difference between horizontal CSJ angles (r =+0.40, P =0.0086). Modelling of the CSP data gained allowed for prediction of up to 24% of the variance in contact lens fit; however, it was likely that stronger associations and an increase in the modelled prediction of variance in fit may have occurred had an objective method of lens fit assessment have been made. A subsequent investigation to determine the validity and repeatability of objective contact lens fit assessment using digital video capture showed no significant benefit over subjective evaluation. The technique, however, was employed in the ensuing investigation to show significant changes in lens fit between 8 hours (the longest duration of wear previously examined) and 16 hours, demonstrating that wearing time is an additional factor driving lens fit dynamics. The modelling of data from enhanced videokeratoscopy composite maps alone allowed for up to 77% of the variance in soft contact lens fit, and up to almost 90% to be predicted when used in conjunction with OCT. The investigations provided further insight into the ocular topography and factors affecting soft contact lens fit.

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.