An international survey of contact lens prescribing for presbyopia

Purpose: The aim was to determine world-wide patterns of fitting contact lenses for the correction of presbyopia. Methods: Up to 1,000 survey forms were sent to contact lens fitters in each of 38 countries between January and March every year over five consecutive years (2005 to 2009). Practitioners were asked to record data relating to the first 10 contact lens fittings or refittings performed after receiving the survey form. Results: Data were received relating to 16,680 presbyopic (age 45 years or older) and 84,202 pre-presbyopic (15 to 44 years) contact lens wearers. Females are over-represented in presbyopic versus pre-presbyopic groups, possibly reflecting a stronger desire for the cosmetic benefits of contact lenses among older women. The extent to which multifocal and monovision lenses are prescribed for presbyopes varies considerably among nations, ranging from 79 per cent of all soft lenses in Portugal to zero in Singapore. There appears to be significant under-prescribing of contact lenses for the correction of presbyopia, although for those who do receive such corrections, three times more multifocal lenses are fitted compared with monovision fittings. Presbyopic corrections are most frequently prescribed for full-time wear and monthly replacement. Conclusions: Despite apparent improvements in multifocal design and an increase in available multifocal options in recent years, practitioners are still under-prescribing with respect to the provision of appropriate contact lenses for the correction of presbyopia. Training of contact lens practitioners in presbyopic contact lens fitting should be accelerated and clinical and laboratory research in this field should be intensified to enhance the prospects of meeting the needs of presbyopic contact lens wearers more fully.

Driving-related eye and head movements are changed by the type of presbyopic correction

Purpose: To investigate whether wearing different presbyopic vision corrections alters the pattern of eye and head movements when viewing dynamic driving-related traffic scenes. Methods: Participants included 20 presbyopes (mean age: 56±5.7 years) who had no experience of wearing presbyopic vision corrections (i.e. all were single vision wearers). Eye and head movements were recorded while wearing five different vision corrections: single vision lenses (SV), progressive addition spectacle lenses (PALs), bifocal spectacle lenses (BIF), monovision (MV) and multifocal contact lenses (MTF CL) in random order. Videotape recordings of traffic scenes of suburban roads and expressways (with edited targets) were presented as dynamic driving-related stimuli and digital numeric display panels included as near visual stimuli (simulating speedometer and radio). Eye and head movements were recorded using the faceLAB™ system and the accuracy of target identification was also recorded. Results: The magnitude of eye movements while viewing the driving-related traffic scenes was greater when wearing BIF and PALs than MV and MTF CL (p≤0.013). The magnitude of head movements was greater when wearing SV, BIF and PALs than MV and MTF CL (p<0.0001) and the number of saccades was significantly higher for BIF and PALs than MV (p≤0.043). Target recognition accuracy was poorer for all vision corrections when the near stimulus was located at eccentricities inferiorly and to the left, rather than directly below the primary position of gaze (p=0.008), and PALs gave better performance than MTF CL (p=0.043). Conclusions: Different presbyopic vision corrections alter eye and head movement patterns. In particular, the larger magnitude of eye and head movements and greater number of saccades associated with the spectacle presbyopic corrections, may impact on driving performance.

Contact lens correction of presbyopia

The ageing population highlights the need to provide effective optical solutions for presbyopic contact lens wearers. However, data gathered from annual contact lens fitting surveys demonstrate that fewer than 40% of contact lens wearers over 45 years of age (virtually all of whom can be presumed to suffer a partial or complete loss of accommodation) are prescribed a presbyopic correction. Furthermore, monovision is prescribed as frequently as multifocal lenses. These observations suggest that an optimal solution to the contact lens correction of presbyopia remains elusive.

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

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)

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.

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.

Radiographic outcomes over time after endoscopic anterior scoliosis correction

A prospective, consecutive series of 106 patients receiving endoscopic anterior scoliosis correction. The aim was to analyse changes in radiographic parameters and rib hump in the two years following surgery. Endoscopic anterior scoliosis correction is a level sparing approach, therefore it is important to assess the amount of decompensation which occurs after surgery. All patients received a single anterior rod and vertebral body screws using a standard compression technique. Cleared disc spaces were packed with either mulched femoral head allograft or rib head/iliac crest autograft. Radiographic parameters (major, instrumented, minor Cobb, T5-T12 kyphosis) and rib hump were measured at 2,6,12 and 24 months after surgery. Paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests were used to assess the statistical significant of changes between adjacent time intervals.----- Results: Mean loss of major curve correction from 2 to 24 months after surgery was 4 degrees. Mean loss of rib hump correction was 1.4 degrees. Mean sagittal kyphosis increased from 27 degrees at 2 months to 30.6 degrees at 24 months. Rod fractures and screw-related complications resulted in several degrees less correction than patients without complications, but overall there was no clinically significant decompensation following complications. The study concluded that there are small changes in deformity measures after endoscopic anterior scoliosis surgery, which are statistically significant but not clinically significant.

The anatomical and biomechanical consequences of anterior vertebral stapling for the fusionless correction of scoliosis

Fusionless scoliosis surgery is an emerging treatment for idiopathic scoliosis as it offers theoretical advantages over current forms of treatment. Anterior vertebral stapling using a nitinol staple is one such treatment. Despite increasing interest in this technique, little is known about the effects on the spine following insertion, or the mechanism of action of the staple. The aims of this study were threefold; (1) to measure changes in the bending stiffness of a single motion segment following staple insertion, (2) to describe the forces that occur within the staple during spinal movement, and (3) to describe the anatomical changes that occur following staple insertion. Results suggest that staple insertion consistently decreased stiffness in all directions of motion. An explanation for the finding may be found in the outcomes of the strain gauge testing and micro-CT scan. The strain gauge testing showed that once inserted, the staple tips applied a baseline compressive force to the surrounding trabecular bone and vertebral end-plate. This finding would be consistent with the current belief that the clinical effect of the staples is via unilateral compression of the physis. Interestingly however, as each specimen progressed through the five cycles of each test, the baseline load on the staple tips gradually decreased, implying that the force at the staple tip-bone interface was decreasing. We believe that this was likely occurring as a result of structural damage to the trabecular bone and vertebral end-plate by the staple effectively causing ‘loosening’ of the staple. This hypothesis is further supported by the findings of the micro-CT scan. The pictures depict significant trabecular bone and physeal injury around the staple blades. These results suggest that the current hypothesis that stapling modulates growth through physeal compression may be incorrect, but rather the effect occurs through mechanical disruption of the vertebral growth plate.

Effect of bone graft type on fusion rates following endoscopic anterior scoliosis correction

Bone graft is generally considered fundamental in achieving solid fusion in scoliosis correction and pseudarthrosis following instrumentation may predispose to implant failure. In endoscopic anterior-instrumented scoliosis surgery, autologous rib or iliac crest graft has been utilised traditionally but both techniques increase operative duration and cause donor site morbidity. Allograft bone and bone- morphogenetic-protein alternatives may improve fusion rates but this remains controversial. This study's objective was to compare two-year postoperative fusion rates in a series of patients who underwent endoscopic anterior instrumentation for thoracic scoliosis utilising various bone graft types. Significantly better rates of fusion occurred in endoscopic anterior instrumented scoliosis correction using femoral allograft compared to autologous rib-heads and iliac crest graft. This may be partly explained by the difficulty obtaining sufficient quantities of autologous graft. Lower fusion rates in the autologous graft group appeared to predispose to rod fracture although the clinical consequence of implant failure is uncertain.

The relationship between deformity correction and clinical outcomes after thoracoscopic scoliosis surgery

Surgical treatment of scoliosis is quantitatively assessed in the clinic using radiographic measures of deformity correction, as well as the rib hump, but it is important to understand the extent to which these quantitative measures correlate with self-reported improvements in patients’ quality of life following surgery. The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the relationship between clinical outcomes of thoracoscopic anterior scoliosis surgery and deformity correction using the Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire (SRS-24). Patients undergoing thoracoscopic anterior scoliosis correction report good SRS scores which are comparable to those reported in previous studies for both open and thoracoscopic scoliosis correction procedures. Major Cobb correction is a significant predictor of patient satisfaction when comparing subgroups of patients with the highest and lowest major curve corrections.