Through-focus performance with multifocal contact lenses : effect of binocularity, pupil diameter and inherent ocular aberrations

Purpose to evaluate the effects of the wearer’s pupil size and spherical aberration on visual performance with centre-near, aspheric multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs). The advantage of binocular over monocular vision was also investigated. Methods Twelve young volunteers, with an average age of 27±5 years, participated in the study. LogMAR Visual Acuity (VA) was measured under cycloplegia for a range of defocus levels (from +3.0 to -3.0D, in 0.5D steps) with no correction and with three aspheric MFCLs (Air Optix Aqua Multifocal, Ciba Vision, Duluth, GA, US) with a centre-near design, providing correction for “Low”, “Med” and “High” near demands. Measurements were performed for all combinations of the following conditions: i) artificial pupils of 6mm and 3mm diameter, ii) binocular and monocular (dominant eye) vision. Depth-of-focus (DOF) was calculated from the VA vs. defocus curves. Ocular aberrations under cycloplegia were measured using iTrace. Results VA at -3.0D defocus (simulating near performance) was statistically higher for the 3mm than for the 6mm pupil (p=0.006), and for binocular rather than for monocular vision (p<0.001). Similarly, DOF was better for the 3mm pupil (p=0.002) and for binocular viewing conditions (p<0.001, ANOVA). Both VA at –3.0D defocus and DOF increased as the “addition” of the MFCL correction increased. Finally, with the centre-near MFCLs a linear correlation was found between VA at –3.0D defocus and the wearer’s ocular spherical aberration (R2=0.20 p<0.001 for 6mm data), with the eyes exhibiting the higher positive spherical aberration experiencing lower VAs. By contrast, no correlation was found between VA and spherical aberration at 0.00D defocus (distance vision). Conclusions Both near VA and depth-of-focus improve with these MFCLs, with the effects being more pronounced for small pupils and binocular than for monocular vision. Coupling of the wearer’s ocular spherical aberration with the aberration profiles provided by MFCLs affects their functionality.

Power profiles of multifocal contact lenses and their interpretation

Purpose Many contact lens (CL) manufacturers produce simultaneous-image lenses in which power varies either smoothly or discontinuously with zonal radius. We present in vitro measurements of some recent CLs and discuss how power profiles might be approximated in terms of nominal distance corrections, near additions, and on-eye visual performance. Methods Fully hydrated soft, simultaneous-image CLs from four manufacturers (Air Optix AQUA, Alcon; PureVision multifocal, Bausch & Lomb; Acuvue OASYS for Presbyopia, Vistakon; Biofinity multifocal- ‘‘D’’ design, Cooper Vision) were measured with a Phase focus Lens Profiler (Phase Focus Ltd., Sheffield,UK) in a wet cell and powerswere corrected to powers in air. All lenses had zero labeled power for distance. Results Sagittal power profiles revealed that the ‘‘low’’ add PureVision and Air Optix lenses exhibit smooth (parabolic) profiles, corresponding to negative spherical aberration. The ‘‘mid’’ and ‘‘high’’ add PureVision and Air Optix lenses have biaspheric designs, leading to different rates of power change for the central and peripheral portions. All OASYS lenses display a series of concentric zones, separated by abrupt discontinuities; individual profiles can be constrained between two parabolically decreasing curves, each giving a valid description of the power changes over alternate annular zones. Biofinity lenses have constant power over the central circular region of radius 1.5 mm, followed by an annular zone where the power increases approximately linearly, the gradient increasing with the add power, and finally an outer zone showing a slow, linear increase in power with a gradient being almost independent of the add power. Conclusions The variation in power across the simultaneous-image lenses produces enhanced depth of focus. The throughfocusnature of the image, which influences the ‘‘best focus’’ (distance correction) and the reading addition, will vary with several factors, including lens centration, the wearer’s pupil diameter, and ocular aberrations, particularly spherical aberration; visual performance with some designs may show greater sensitivity to these factors.

The changing performance of multifocal contact lenses compared to monovision.

Purpose:Multifocal contact lenses (MCLs) have been available for decades. A review of the literature suggests that while, historically, these lenses have been partially successful, they have struggled to compete with monovision (MV). More recent publications suggest that there has been an improvement in the performance of these lenses. This study set out to investigate whether the apparent improved lens performance reported in the literature is reflected in clinical practice. Methods:Data collected over the last 5yrs via the International Contact Lens Prescribing Survey Consortium was reviewed for patients over the age of 45yrs. The published reports of clinical trials were reviewed to assess lens performance over the time period. Results:Data review was of 16,680 presbyopic lens fits in 38 countries. The results are that 29% were fit with MCLs, 8% MV and 63% single vision (SV). A previous survey conducted in Australia during 1988-89 reported that 9% of presbyopes were fit with MCLs, 29% MV and 63% SV. The results from our survey for Australia alone were 28% (MV 13%) vs 9% (MV 29%) suggesting an increase in usage of MCLs from 1988-89 to 2010. A review of the literature indicates the reported level of visual acuities with MCLs in comparison to MV has remained equivalent over this time period, yet preference has switch from MV to MCLs. Conclusions:There is evidence that currently more MCLs than MV are being fit to presbyopes, compared to 1988-89. This increased use is likely due to the improved visual performance of these lenses, which is not demonstrated with acuity measures but reported by wearers, suggesting that patient-based subjective ratings are currently the best way to measure visual performance.

Comparative analysis of the visual performance and aberrometric outcomes with a new hybrid and two silicone hydrogel multifocal contact lenses: a pilot study

Background: The aim was to evaluate the visual performance achieved with a new multifocal hybrid contact lens and to compare it with that obtained with two other currently available multifocal soft contact lenses. Methods: This pilot prospective comparative study comprised a total of 16 presbyopic eyes of eight patients ranging in age from 43 to 58 years. All patients were fitted with three different models of multifocal contact lens: Duette multifocal (SynergEyes), Air Optix AQUA multifocal (Alcon) and Biofinity multifocal (CooperVision). Fittings were performed randomly in each patient according to a random number sequence, with a wash-out period between fittings of seven days. At two weeks post-fitting, visual, photopic contrast sensitivity and ocular aberrometry were evaluated. Results: No statistically significant differences were found in distance and near visual acuity achieved with the three different types of multifocal contact lens (p ≥ 0.05). Likewise, no significant differences between lenses were found in the monocular and binocular defocus curve (p ≥ 0.10). Concerning contrast sensitivity, better monocular contrast sensitivities for 6, 12 and 18 cycles per degree were found with the Duette and Air Optix multifocal compared to Biofinity (p = 0.02). Binocularly, differences between lenses were not significant (p ≥ 0.27). Furthermore, trefoil aberration was significantly higher with Biofinity multifocal (p < 0.01) and Air Optix (p = 0.01) multifocal compared to Duette. Conclusions: The Duette multifocal hybrid contact lens seems to provide similar visual quality outcomes in presbyopic patients with low corneal astigmatism, when compared with other soft multifocal contact lenses. This preliminary result should be confirmed in studies with larger samples.

Accommodation in young adults wearing multifocal soft contact lenses under long- and short- wavelength lighting

Purpose: Several studies have suggested accommodative lags may serve as a stimulus for myopic growth, and while a blurred foveal image is believed to the main stimulus for accommodation, spectral composition of the retinal image is also believed to influence accommodative accuracy. Of particular interest is how altering spectral lighting conditions influences accommodation in the presence of soft multifocal contact lenses, which are currently being used off-label for myopia control. Methods: Accommodative responses were assessed using a Grand Seiko WAM-5500 autorefractor for four target distances: 25, 33, 50, and 100cm for 30 young adult subjects (14 myopic, 16 emmetropic; mean refractive errors (±SD, D) -4.22±2.04 and -0.15±0.67 respectively). Measurements were obtained with four different soft contact lenses, Single vision distance (SVD), Single vision near (SVN), Centre-Near (CN) and Centre-Distance (CD) (+1.50 add), and three different lighting conditions: red (peak λ 632nm), blue (peak λ 460nm), and white (peak λ 560nm). Corrections for chromatic differences in refraction were made prior to calculating accommodative errors. Results: The size of accommodative errors was significantly affected by lens design (p<0.001), lighting (p=0.027), and target distance (p=0.009). Mean accommodative errors were significantly larger with the SV lenses compared to the CD and CN designs (p<0.001). Errors were also significantly larger under blue light compared to white (p=0.004) and a significant interaction noted between lens design and lighting (p<0.001). Blue light generally decreased accommodative lags and increased accommodative leads relative to white and red light, the opposite was true of red light (p≤0.001). Lens design also significantly influenced direction of accommodative error (i.e. lag or lead) (p<0.001). Interactions with or between refractive groups were not found to be statistically significant for either the magnitude or direction of accommodative error (p>0.05 for all). Conclusions: Accuracy of accommodation is affected by both lens design and by wavelength of lighting. These accommodative lag data lend some support to recent speculation about the potential therapeutic value of lighting with a spectral bias towards blue during near work for myopia, although such treatment effects are likely to be more subtle under broad compared to the narrow spectrum lighting conditions used here.

The impact of presbyopic spectacles and contact lenses on driving performance

Presbyopia affects individuals from the age of 45 years onwards, resulting in difficulty in accurately focusing on near objects. There are many optical corrections available including spectacles or contact lenses that are designed to enable presbyopes to see clearly at both far and near distances. However, presbyopic vision corrections also disturb aspects of visual function under certain circumstances. The impact of these changes on activities of daily living such as driving are, however, poorly understood. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine which aspects of driving performance might be affected by wearing different types of presbyopic vision corrections. In order to achieve this aim, three experiments were undertaken. The first experiment involved administration of a questionnaire to compare the subjective driving difficulties experienced when wearing a range of common presbyopic contact lens and spectacle corrections. The questionnaire was developed and piloted, and included a series of items regarding difficulties experienced while driving under day and night-time conditions. Two hundred and fifty five presbyopic patients responded to the questionnaire and were categorised into five groups, including those wearing no vision correction for driving (n = 50), bifocal spectacles (BIF, n = 54), progressive addition lenses spectacles (PAL, n = 50), monovision (MV, n = 53) and multifocal contact lenses (MTF CL, n = 48). Overall, ratings of satisfaction during daytime driving were relatively high for all correction types. However, MV and MTF CL wearers were significantly less satisfied with aspects of their vision during night-time than daytime driving, particularly with regard to disturbances from glare and haloes. Progressive addition lens wearers noticed more distortion of peripheral vision, while BIF wearers reported more difficulties with tasks requiring changes in focus and those who wore no vision correction for driving reported problems with intermediate and near tasks. Overall, the mean level of satisfaction for daytime driving was quite high for all of the groups (over 80%), with the BIF wearers being the least satisfied with their vision for driving. Conversely, at night, MTF CL wearers expressed the least satisfaction. Research into eye and head movements has become increasingly of interest in driving research as it provides a means of understanding how the driver responds to visual stimuli in traffic. Previous studies have found that wearing PAL can affect eye and head movement performance resulting in slower eye movement velocities and longer times to stabilize the gaze for fixation. These changes in eye and head movement patterns may have implications for driving safety, given that the visual tasks for driving include a range of dynamic search tasks. Therefore, the second study was designed to investigate the influence of different presbyopic corrections on driving-related eye and head movements under standardized laboratory-based conditions. Twenty presbyopes (mean age: 56.1 ± 5.7 years) who had no experience of wearing presbyopic vision corrections, apart from single vision reading spectacles, were recruited. Each participant wore five different types of vision correction: single vision distance lenses (SV), PAL, BIF, MV and MTF CL. For each visual condition, participants were required to view videotape recordings of traffic scenes, track a reference vehicle and identify a series of peripherally presented targets while their eye and head movements were recorded using the faceLAB® eye and head tracking system. Digital numerical display panels were also included as near visual stimuli (simulating the visual displays of a vehicle speedometer and radio). The results demonstrated that the path length of eye movements while viewing and responding to driving-related traffic scenes was significantly longer when wearing BIF and PAL than MV and MTF CL. The path length of head movements was greater with SV, BIF and PAL than MV and MTF CL. Target recognition was less accurate when the near stimulus was located at eccentricities inferiorly and to the left, rather than directly below the primary position of gaze, regardless of vision correction type. The third experiment aimed to investigate the real world driving performance of presbyopes while wearing different vision corrections measured on a closed-road circuit at night-time. Eye movements were recorded using the ASL Mobile Eye, eye tracking system (as the faceLAB® system proved to be impractical for use outside of the laboratory). Eleven participants (mean age: 57.25 ± 5.78 years) were fitted with four types of prescribed vision corrections (SV, PAL, MV and MTF CL). The measures of driving performance on the closed-road circuit included distance to sign recognition, near target recognition, peripheral light-emitting-diode (LED) recognition, low contrast road hazards recognition and avoidance, recognition of all the road signs, time to complete the course, and driving behaviours such as braking, accelerating, and cornering. The results demonstrated that driving performance at night was most affected by MTF CL compared to PAL, resulting in shorter distances to read signs, slower driving speeds, and longer times spent fixating road signs. Monovision resulted in worse performance in the task of distance to read a signs compared to SV and PAL. The SV condition resulted in significantly more errors made in interpreting information from in-vehicle devices, despite spending longer time fixating on these devices. Progressive addition lenses were ranked as the most preferred vision correction, while MTF CL were the least preferred vision correction for night-time driving. This thesis addressed the research question of how presbyopic vision corrections affect driving performance and the results of the three experiments demonstrated that the different types of presbyopic vision corrections (e.g. BIF, PAL, MV and MTF CL) can affect driving performance in different ways. Distance-related driving tasks showed reduced performance with MV and MTF CL, while tasks which involved viewing in-vehicle devices were significantly hampered by wearing SV corrections. Wearing spectacles such as SV, BIF and PAL induced greater eye and head movements in the simulated driving condition, however this did not directly translate to impaired performance on the closed- road circuit tasks. These findings are important for understanding the influence of presbyopic vision corrections on vision under real world driving conditions. They will also assist the eye care practitioner to understand and convey to patients the potential driving difficulties associated with wearing certain types of presbyopic vision corrections and accordingly to support them in the process of matching patients to optical corrections which meet their visual needs.

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.

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)

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.

Patterns of fitting cosmetically tinted contact lenses

Cosmetically tinted soft contact lenses are an attractive option for contact lens wearers. Data that we have gathered from annual contact lens fitting surveys demonstrate that those wearing tinted lenses are more likely to be female (4.6% of all soft lenses fitted vs. 1.6% for males; p < 0.0001) and younger (27 11 years vs. 33 13 years for those wearing non-tinted lenses; p < 0.0001). Tinted lenses tend to be worn more on a part-time basis and are replaced less frequently than non-tinted lenses. The decline in fitting tinted lenses over the past 12 years may be due to (a) the current limited availability of tinted lenses in silicone hydrogel materials and daily disposable replacement frequencies, which together represent a significant majority (78%) of new soft lenses fits today, (b) growing concerns among lens wearers and practitioners relating to the risks of complications associated with the wearing of tinted lenses, and (c) reduced promotion of such lenses by the contact lens industry.

Factors influencing the prescribing of hydrogel contact lenses

Despite the current market popularity of silicone hydrogel contact lenses, conventional hydrogel lenses still represent a significant proportion of the overall contact lens market. Data gathered from annual UK contact lens fitting surveys over the past 13 years indicate that 64% of hydrogel lenses prescribed during this period were of low/medium water content (<60% water). Whereas, in the past, practitioners would choose the water content of a hydrogel lens to meet specific clinical needs, this choice appears today to be largely governed by product availability.

Tear film surface quality with soft contact lenses using dynamic-area high-speed videokeratoscopy

Objectives. To evaluate the performance of the dynamic-area high-speed videokeratoscopy technique in the assessment of tear film surface quality with and without the presence of soft contact lenses on eye. Methods. Retrospective data from a tear film study using basic high-speed videokeratoscopy, captured at 25 frames per second, (Kopf et al., 2008, J Optom) were used. Eleven subjects had tear film analysis conducted in the morning, midday and evening on the first and seventh day of one week of no lens wear. Five of the eleven subjects then completed an extra week of hydrogel lens wear followed by a week of silicone hydrogel lens wear. Analysis was performed on a 6 second period of the inter-blink recording. The dynamic-area high-speed videokeratoscopy technique uses the maximum available area of Placido ring pattern reflected from the tear interface and eliminates regions of disturbance due to shadows from the eyelashes. A value of tear film surface quality was derived using image rocessing techniques, based on the quality of the reflected ring pattern orientation. Results. The group mean tear film surface quality and the standard deviations for each of the conditions (bare eye, hydrogel lens, and silicone hydrogel lens) showed a much lower coefficient of variation than previous methods (average reduction of about 92%). Bare eye measurements from the right and left eyes of eleven individuals showed high correlation values (Pearson’s correlation r = 0.73, p < 0.05). Repeated measures ANOVA across the 6 second period of measurement in the normal inter-blink period for the bare eye condition showed no statistically significant changes. However, across the 6 second inter-blink period with both contact lenses, statistically significant changes were observed (p < 0.001) for both types of contact lens material. Overall, wearing hydrogel and silicone hydrogel lenses caused the tear film surface quality to worsen compared with the bare eye condition (repeated measures ANOVA, p < 0.0001 for both hydrogel and silicone hydrogel). Conclusions. The results suggest that the dynamic-area method of high-speed videokeratoscopy was able to distinguish and quantify the subtle, but systematic worsening of tear film surface quality in the inter-blink interval in contact lens wear. It was also able to clearly show a difference between bare eye and contact lens wearing conditions.