Visual comparison of multifocal contact lens to monovision

Purpose. To compare visual function with the Bausch & Lomb PureVision multifocal contact lens to monovision with PureVision single vision contact lenses. Methods. Twenty presbyopic subjects were fitted with either the PureVision multifocal contact lens or monovision with PureVision singlevision lenses. Aftera 1-month trial, the following assessments of visual function were made: (a) distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (VA); (b) reading ability; (c) distance and near contrast sensitivity function (CSF); (d) near range of clear vision; (e) stereoacuity; and (f) subjective evaluation of near vision ability with a standardized questionnaire. Subjects were then refitted with the alternative correction and the procedure was repeated. All measurements were compared between the two corrections, whereas the ``low addition'' multifocal lens was also compared with the ``high addition'' alternative. Results. Distance and near VA were significantly better with monovision than with the multifocal option (p < 0.05). Intermediate VA (p = 0.13) was similar with both corrections, whereas there was also no significant difference in distance and near CSF (p = 0.29 on both occasions). Reading speeds (p = 0.48) and the critical print size (p = 0.90) were not significantly different between the two contact lens corrections, but stereoacuity (p < 0.01) and the near range of clear vision (p < 0.05) were significantly better with the multifocal option than with monovision. Subjective assessment of near ability was similar for both types of contact lens (p = 0.52). The high addition multifocal lens produced significantly poorer distance and near CSF, near VA, and critical print size compared with the low addition alternative. Conclusions. Monovision performed better than a center-near aspheric simultaneous vision multifocal contact lens of the same material for distance and near VA only. The multifocal option provides better stereoacuity and near range of clear vision, with little differences in CSF, so a better balance of real-world visual function may be achieved due to minimal binocular disruption. (Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:98-105)

Presbyopic LASIK using hybrid bi-aspheric micro-monovision ablation profile for presbyopic corneal treatments

Purpose: To evaluate distance and near image quality after hybrid bi-aspheric multifocal central presbyLASIK treatments. Design: Consecutive case series. Methods: Sixty-four eyes of 32 patients consecutively treated with central presbyLASIK were assessed. The mean age of the patients was 51 ± 3 years with a mean spherical equivalent refraction of-1.08 ± 2.62 diopters (D) and mean astigmatism of 0.52 ± 0.42 D. Monocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), corrected near visual acuity (CNVA), and distance corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) of nondominant eyes; binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA); uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA); distance corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA); and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) were assessed pre- and postoperatively. Subjective quality of vision and near vision was assessed using the 10-item Rasch-scaled Quality of Vision and Near Activity Visual Questionnaire, respectively. Results: At 1 year postoperatively, 93% of patients achieved 20/20 or better binocular UDVA; 90% and 97% of patients had J2 or better UNVA and UIVA, respectively; 7% lost 2 Snellen lines of CDVA; Strehl ratio reduced by ~-4% ± 14%. Defocus curves revealed a loss of half a Snellen line at best focus, with no change for intermediate vergence (-1.25 D) and a mean gain of 2 lines for near vergence (-3 D). Conclusions: Presbyopic treatment using a hybrid bi-aspheric micro-monovision ablation profile is safe and efficacious. The postoperative outcomes indicate improvements in binocular vision at far, intermediate, and near distances with improved contrast sensitivity. A 19% retreatment rate should be considered to increase satisfaction levels, besides a 3% reversal rate.

Comparison of near visual acuity and reading metrics in presbyopia correction

PURPOSE: To provide a consistent standard for the evaluation of different types of presbyopic correction. SETTING: Eye Clinic, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom. METHODS: Presbyopic corrections examined were accommodating intraocular lenses (IOLs), simultaneous multifocal and monovision contact lenses, and varifocal spectacles. Binocular near visual acuity measured with different optotypes (uppercase letters, lowercase letters, and words) and reading metrics assessed with the Minnesota Near Reading chart (reading acuity, critical print size [CPS], CPS reading speed) were intercorrelated (Pearson product moment correlations) and assessed for concordance (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC]) and agreement (Bland-Altman analysis) for indication of clinical usefulness. RESULTS: Nineteen accommodating IOL cases, 40 simultaneous contact lens cases, and 38 varifocal spectacle cases were evaluated. Other than CPS reading speed, all near visual acuity and reading metrics correlated well with each other (r>0.70, P<.001). Near visual acuity measured with uppercase letters was highly concordant (ICC, 0.78) and in close agreement with lowercase letters (+/- 0.17 logMAR). Near word acuity agreed well with reading acuity (+/- 0.16 logMAR), which in turn agreed well with near visual acuity measured with uppercase letters 0.16 logMAR). Concordance (ICC, 0.18 to 0.46) and agreement (+/- 0.24 to 0.30 logMAR) of CPS with the other near metrics was moderate. CONCLUSION: Measurement of near visual ability in presbyopia should be standardized to include assessment of near visual acuity with logMAR uppercase-letter optotypes, smallest logMAR print size that maintains maximum reading speed (CPS), and reading speed. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35:1401-1409 (C) 2009 ASCRS and ESCRS

Functional near vision assessment in presbyopia

The aim of this thesis was to develop standards of best practice for the subjective assessment of near visual function in presbyopia. Near visual acuity (VA) is a quick and simple measure but an assessment of the maximum reading speed and the smallest print size that can maintain this are equally important, to gain a better reflection of real world visual function. These metrics are dependent on the amplitude of accommodation (AoA) and often this must be evaluated using subjective techniques. Defocus curves are less susceptible than the push-up/push-down test to the influence of blur tolerance but their implementation must be standardised such that letter sequences and the order of lens presentation are randomised, to avoid memory effects, whilst the AoA should be quantified as the range of defocus for which only the best VA is maintained. In addition to such clinical assessments, subjective questionnaire evaluations are also important, to determine whether at least an individual’s needs are met. The Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) developed in this thesis can be used for this. Using these standardised near vision metrics it is shown that visual performance with monovision and multifocal contact lenses is comparable whilst initial outcomes of single optic ‘accommodating’ intraocular lens implantation are unlikely to be sustained in the long-term.

Editorial

Welcome to the latest issue of Contact Lens and Anterior Eye. In this issue, Kuldeep Razaida provides a fascinating look at fitting prosthetic lenses to patients in India. I had the good fortune of visiting his clinic in August 2006 at the LV Prasad Eye Institute in Hyderabad, India and was humbled by the vast expertise within the one building. The institute started in 1987 and is the brainchild of the infamous Professor Rao. I think there are few such places in the world where the clinicians work so passionately in treating such interesting patients (for details regarding the LV Prasad Eye Institute see www.lvpei.org). I was in Hyderabad courtesy of IACLE (see issue 29:5 for an editorial by Judith Morris and Sonja Cronje about IACLE) and was able to share ideas with contact lens educators from across the world (for more information on IACLE see www.iacle.org). The issue contains some regular contact lens type papers too; with our aging population readers will be particularly interested in a paper by Mike Freeman and Neil Charman looking at modified monovision with diffractive bifocal lenses. There is an article looking at visual problems with video display terminal use and a study looking at the effects of surface treatment of silicone hydrogel contact lenses. There is an interesting piece from Dr Aisling Mann of Aston University looking at tear protein analysis; this article contains one CET point too for readers who complete the attached multiple choice questions before the relevant deadline. Also, congratulations to the BCLA members who successfully undertook the Fellowship of the BCLA at this year's BCLA conference in Manchester. If you are interested in undertaking the Fellowship please look at the details on the BCLA web page (http://www.bcla.org.uk/fellowship.asp). Amongst the case reports in this issue of CLAE you will notice one from Andrew Elder-Smith, this particular case report was presented as part of his successful Fellowship submission in 2006 and was thought to be of particular good quality by the examiners who asked Andrew to kindly submit it for publication to Contact Lens and Anterior Eye as an example for potential candidates. Finally, it is my sad duty to report the death of Howard Gee earlier this year, a past council member of the BCLA. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends.

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.

Randomized crossover trial of silicone hydrogel presbyopic contact lenses

PURPOSE: To assess the performance of four commercially available silicone hydrogel multifocal monthly contact lens designs against monovision. METHODS: A double-masked randomized crossover trial of Air Optix Aqua multifocal, PureVision 2 for Presbyopia, Acuvue OASYS for Presbyopia, Biofinity multifocal, and monovision with Biofinity contact lenses was conducted on 35 presbyopes (54.3 ± 6.2 years). After 4 weeks of wear, visual performance was quantified by high- and low-contrast visual acuity under photopic and mesopic conditions, reading speed, defocus curves, stereopsis, halometry, aberrometry, Near Activity Visual Questionnaire rating, and subjective quality of vision scoring. Bulbar, limbal, and palpebral hyperemia and corneal staining were graded to monitor the impact of each contact lens on ocular physiology. RESULTS: High-contrast photopic visual acuity (p = 0.102), reading speed (F = 1.082, p = 0.368), and aberrometry (F = 0.855, p = 0.493) were not significantly different between presbyopic lens options. Defocus curve profiles (p <0.001), stereopsis (p <0.001), halometry (F = 4.101, p = 0.004), Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (F = 3.730, p = 0.007), quality of vision (p = 0.002), bulbar hyperemia (p = 0.020), and palpebral hyperemia (p = 0.012) differed significantly between lens types, with the Biofinity multifocal lens design principal (center-distance lens was fitted to the dominant eye and a center-near lens to the nondominant eye) typically outperforming the other lenses. CONCLUSIONS: Although ocular aberration variation between individuals largely masks the differences in optics between current multifocal contact lens designs, certain design strategies can outperform monovision, even in early presbyopes.

Investigating the utility of clinical assessments to predict success with presbyopic contact lens correction

PURPOSE: To determine the utility of a range of clinical and non-clinical indicators to aid the initial selection of the optimum presbyopic contact lens. In addition, to assess whether lens preference was influenced by the visual performance compared to the other designs trialled (intra-subject) or compared to participants who preferred other designs (inter-subject). METHODS: A double-masked randomised crossover trial of Air Optix Aqua multifocal, PureVision 2 for Presbyopia, Acuvue OASYS for Presbyopia, Biofinity multifocal and monovision was conducted on 35 presbyopes (54.3±6.2years). Participant lifestyle, personality, pupil characteristics and aberrometry were assessed prior to lens fitting. After 4 weeks of wear, high and low contrast visual acuity (VA) under photopic and mesopic conditions, reading speed, Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) rating, subjective quality-of-vision scoring, defocus curves, stereopsis, halometry, aberrometry and ocular physiology were quantified. RESULTS: After trialling all the lenses, preference was mixed (n=12 Biofinity, n=10 monovision, n=7 Purevision, n=4 Air Optix Aqua, n=2 Oasys). Lens preference was not dependent on personality (F=1.182, p=0.323) or the hours spent working at near (p=0.535) or intermediate (p=0.759) distances. No intersubject or strong intrasubject relationships emerged between lens preference and reading speed, NAVQ rating, halo size, aberrometry or ocular physiology (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Participant lifestyle and personality, ocular optics, contact lens visual performance and ocular physiology provided poor indicators of the preferred lens type after 4 weeks of wear. This is confounded by the wide range of task visual demands of presbyopes and the limited optical differences between current multifocal contact lens designs.