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.

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.

The Impact of Multifocal Intraocular Lens in Retinal Imaging with Optical Coherence Tomography

Multifocal intraocular lenses (MF IOLs) have concentric optical zones with different dioptric power, enabling patients to have good visual acuity at multiple focal points. However, several optical limitations have been attributed to this particular design. The purpose of this study is to access the effect of MF IOLs design on the accuracy of retinal optical coherence tomography (OCT). Cross-sectional study conducted at the Refractive Surgery Department of Central Lisbon Hospital Center. Twenty-three eyes of 15 patients with a diffractive MF IOL and 27 eyes of 15 patients with an aspheric monofocal IOL were included in this study. All patients underwent OCT macular scans using Heidelberg Spectralis®. Macular thickness and volume values and image quality (Q factor) were compared between the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences between both groups regarding macular thickness or volume measurements. Retinal OCT image quality was significantly lower in the MF IOL group (p < 0.01). MF IOLs are associated with a significant decrease in OCT image quality. However, this fact does not seem to compromise the accuracy of spectral domain OCT retinal measurements.

Light-distortion analysis as a possible indicator of visual quality after refractive lens exchange with diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses

METHODS: Refractive lens exchange was performed with implantation of an AT Lisa 839M (trifocal) or 909MP (bifocal toric) IOL, the latter if corneal astigmatism was more than 0.75 diopter (D). The postoperative visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated. A prototype light-distortion analyzer was used to quantify the postoperative light-distortion indices. A control group of eyes in which a Tecnis ZCB00 1-piece monofocal IOL was implanted had the same examinations. RESULTS: A trifocal or bifocal toric IOL was implanted in 66 eyes. The control IOL was implanted in 18 eyes. All 3 groups obtained a significant improvement in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) (P < .001) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (P Z .001). The mean uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) was 0.123 logMAR with the trifocal IOL and 0.130 logMAR with the bifocal toric IOL. The residual refractive cylinder was less than 1.00 D in 86.7% of cases with the toric IOL. The mean light-distortion index was significantly higher in the multifocal IOL groups than in the monofocal group (P < .001), although no correlation was found between the light-distortion index and CDVA. CONCLUSIONS: The multifocal IOLs provided excellent UDVA and functional UNVA despite increased light-distortion indices. The light-distortion analyzer reliably quantified a subjective component of vision distinct from visual acuity; it may become a useful adjunct in the evaluation of visual quality obtained with multifocal IOLs.

New-Generation Multifocal Intraocular Lens for Pediatric Cataract.

Background/Aims: To evaluate multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) implantation in children. Methods: This is a retrospective study evaluating refractive, visual and safety results of MIOL in pediatric cataract surgery. Average follow-up was 25.73 ± 10.5 months. Surgery included 12 o'clock clear corneal incision, anterior capsulorhexis, lens material aspiration and MIOL implantation (SN6AD3; Alcon). Results: We included 34 cataract eyes of 26 pediatric patients aged 2-15 years, of which 14 (54%) were unilateral. Best near visual acuity (BNVA) and best distance visual acuity (BDVA) improved significantly in 100% of eyes (p = 0.0001). BDVA was above 0.8 in 31.25% (5/16) of bilateral cases. Significant stereopsis improvement was observed postoperatively in bilateral cases only (p = 0.01). Conclusion: MIOL implantation is a safe alternative to monofocal pseudophakia for pediatric cataract with a very low complication rate. Significant BNVA, BDVA and stereopsis improvement can be achieved, particularly in bilateral cases. Message: This study shows significant BDVA, BNVA and stereopsis improvement, especially in bilateral cases, after MIOL implantation for pediatric cataracts. © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Modulation transfer function and optical quality after bilateral implantation of a+3.00 D versus a+4.00 D multifocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE: To determine whether the improvement in intermediate vision after bilateral implantation of an aspheric multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with a +3.00 diopter (D) addition (add) occurs at the expense of optical quality compared with the previous model with a +4.00 D add. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil. DESIGN: Prospective randomized double-masked comparative clinical trial. METHODS: One year after bilateral implantation of Acrysof Restor SN6AD1 +3.00 D IOLs or Acrysof Restor SN6AD3 +4.00 D IOLs, optical quality was evaluated by analyzing the in vivo modulation transfer function (MTF) and point-spread function (expressed as Strehl ratio). The Strehl ratio and MTF curve with a 4.0 pupil and a 6.0 mm pupil were measured by dynamic retinoscopy aberrometry. The uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuities at 4 m, uncorrected and distance-corrected near visual acuities at 40 cm, and uncorrected and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuities at 50 cm, 60 cm, and 70 cm were measured. RESULTS: Both IOL groups comprised 40 eyes of 20 patients. One year postoperatively, there were no statistically significant between-group differences in the MTF or Strehl ratio with either pupil size. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in distance or near visual acuity. Intermediate visual acuity was significantly better in the +3.00 D IOL group. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that the improvement in intermediate vision in eyes with the aspheric multifocal +3.00 D add IOL occurred without decreasing optical quality over that with the previous version IOL with a +4.00 D add.

Analysis of internal astigmatism and higher order aberrations in eyes implanted with a new diffractive multifocal toric intraocular lens

Background To evaluate the intraocular lens (IOL) position by analyzing the postoperative axis of internal astigmatism as well as the higher-order aberration (HOA) profile after cataract surgery following the implantation of a diffractive multifocal toric IOL. Methods Prospective study including 51 eyes with corneal astigmatism of 1.25D or higher of 29 patients with ages ranging between 20 and 61 years old. All cases underwent uneventful cataract surgery with implantation of the AT LISA 909 M toric IOL (Zeiss). Visual, refractive and corneal topograpy changes were evaluated during a 12-month follow-up. In addition, the axis of internal astigmatism as well as ocular, corneal, and internal HOA (5-mm pupil) were evaluated postoperatively by means of an integrated aberrometer (OPD Scan II, Nidek). Results A significant improvement in uncorrected distance and near visual acuities (p < 0.01) was found, which was consistent with a significant correction of manifest astigmatism (p < 0.01). No significant changes were observed in corneal astigmatism (p = 0.32). With regard to IOL alignment, the difference between the axes of postoperative internal and preoperative corneal astigmatisms was close to perpendicularity (12 months, 87.16° ± 7.14), without significant changes during the first 6 months (p ≥ 0.46). Small but significant changes were detected afterwards (p = 0.01). Additionally, this angular difference correlated with the postoperative magnitude of manifest cylinder (r = 0.31, p = 0.03). Minimal contribution of intraocular optics to the global magnitude of HOA was observed. Conclusions The diffractive multifocal toric IOL evaluated is able to provide a predictable astigmatic correction with apparent excellent levels of optical quality during the first year after implantation.

Error induced by the estimation of the corneal power and the effective lens position with a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal intraocular lens

AIM: To evaluate the prediction error in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal IOL and the impact on this error of the optimization of the keratometric estimation of the corneal power and the prediction of the effective lens position (ELP). METHODS: Retrospective study including a total of 25 eyes of 13 patients (age, 50 to 83y) with previous cataract surgery with implantation of the Lentis Mplus LS-312 IOL (Oculentis GmbH, Germany). In all cases, an adjusted IOL power (PIOLadj) was calculated based on Gaussian optics using a variable keratometric index value (nkadj) for the estimation of the corneal power (Pkadj) and on a new value for ELP (ELPadj) obtained by multiple regression analysis. This PIOLadj was compared with the IOL power implanted (PIOLReal) and the value proposed by three conventional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q and Holladay). RESULTS: PIOLReal was not significantly different than PIOLadj and Holladay IOL power (P>0.05). In the Bland and Altman analysis, PIOLadj showed lower mean difference (-0.07 D) and limits of agreement (of 1.47 and -1.61 D) when compared to PIOLReal than the IOL power value obtained with the Holladay formula. Furthermore, ELPadj was significantly lower than ELP calculated with other conventional formulas (P<0.01) and was found to be dependent on axial length, anterior chamber depth and Pkadj. CONCLUSION: Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery with implantation of the multifocal IOL Lentis Mplus LS-312 can be optimized by minimizing the keratometric error and by estimating ELP using a mathematical expression dependent on anatomical factors.

Multifocal intraocular lens differentiation using defocus curves

Purpose: To determine the most appropriate analysis technique for the differentiation of multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) designs using defocus curve assessment of visual capability.Methods:Four groups of fifteen subjects were implanted bilaterally with either monofocal intraocular lenses, refractive MIOLs, diffractive MIOLs, or a combination of refractive and diffractive MIOLs. Defocus curves between -5.0D and +1.5D were evaluated using an absolute and relative depth-of-focus method, the direct comparison method and a new 'Area-of-focus' metric. The results were correlated with a subjective perception of near and intermediate vision. Results:Neither depth-of-focus method of analysis were sensitive enough to differentiate between MIOL groups (p>0.05). The direct comparison method indicated that the refractive MIOL group performed better at +1.00, -1.00 and -1.50 D and worse at -3.00, -3.50, -4.00 and -5.00D compared to the diffractive MIOL group (p

Clinical evaluation of a multifocal aspheric diffractive intraocular lens

Aim: To evaluate the performance of an aspheric diffractive multifocal acrylic intraocular lens (IOL), ZMB00 1-Piece Tecnis. Setting: Five sites across Europe. Methods: Fifty-two patients with cataracts (average age 68.5±10.5 years, 35 female) were bilaterally implanted with the aspheric diffractive multifocal IOL after completing a questionnaire regarding their optical visual symptoms, use of visual correction and their visual satisfaction. The questionnaire was completed again 4-6 months after surgery along with measures of uncorrected and best-corrected distance and near visual acuity, under photopic and mesopic lighting, reading ability, defocus curve testing and ocular examination for adverse events. Results: The residual refractive error was 0.01±0.47D with 56% of eyes within ±0.25D and 97% within ±1.0D. Uncorrected visual acuity was 0.02±0.10logMAR at distance and 0.15±0.30 logMAR at near, only reducing to 0.07±0.10logMAR at distance and 0.21±0.25logMAR at near in mesopic conditions.The defocus curve showed a near addition between 2.5-3.0 D allowing a reading acuity of 0.08±0.13 logMAR, with a range of clear vision <0.3 logMAR of ∼4.0 D. The average reading speed was 121.4±30.8 words per minute. Spectacle independence was 100% for distance and 88% for near, with high levels of satisfaction reported. Overall rating of vision without glasses could be explained (r=0.760) by preoperative best-corrected distance acuity, postoperative reading acuity and postoperative uncorrected distance acuity in photopic conditions (p<0.001). Only two minor adverse events occurred. Conclusions: The ZMB00 1-Piece Tecnis multifocal IOL provides a good visual outcome at distance and near with minimal adverse effects.

Can aberrometry provide rapid and reliable measures of subjective depth of focus following multifocal intraocular lens implantation?

Purpose: To determine whether the ‘through-focus’ aberrations of a multifocal and accommodative intraocular lens (IOL) implanted patient can be used to provide rapid and reliable measures of their subjective range of clear vision. Methods: Eyes that had been implanted with a concentric (n = 8), segmented (n = 10) or accommodating (n = 6) intraocular lenses (mean age 62.9 ± 8.9 years; range 46-79 years) for over a year underwent simultaneous monocular subjective (electronic logMAR test chart at 4m with letters randomised between presentations) and objective (Aston open-field aberrometer) defocus curve testing for levels of defocus between +1.50 to -5.00DS in -0.50DS steps, in a randomised order. Pupil size and ocular aberration (a combination of the patient’s and the defocus inducing lens aberrations) at each level of blur was measured by the aberrometer. Visual acuity was measured subjectively at each level of defocus to determine the traditional defocus curve. Objective acuity was predicted using image quality metrics. Results: The range of clear focus differed between the three IOL types (F=15.506, P=0.001) as well as between subjective and objective defocus curves (F=6.685, p=0.049). There was no statistically significant difference between subjective and objective defocus curves in the segmented or concentric ring MIOL group (P>0.05). However a difference was found between the two measures and the accommodating IOL group (P<0.001). Mean Delta logMAR (predicted minus measured logMAR) across all target vergences was -0.06 ± 0.19 logMAR. Predicted logMAR defocus curves for the multifocal IOLs did not show a near vision addition peak, unlike the subjective measurement of visual acuity. However, there was a strong positive correlation between measured and predicted logMAR for all three IOLs (Pearson’s correlation: P<0.001). Conclusions: Current subjective procedures are lengthy and do not enable important additional measures such as defocus curves under differently luminance or contrast levels to be assessed, which may limit our understanding of MIOL performance in real-world conditions. In general objective aberrometry measures correlated well with the subjective assessment indicating the relative robustness of this technique in evaluating post-operative success with segmented and concentric ring MIOL.

Acquired oscillopsia: potential complication after multifocal IOL implantation

A healthy 60-year-old woman had uneventful bilateral sequential cataract surgery with diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Immediately after surgery in the first eye, the patient complained of right monocular oscillopsia during motion. Surgery in the second eye was followed by the same symptoms. Ocular motility was normal. Any movement of head or eye was accompanied by oscillopsia, disappearing immediately upon cessation of movement. Slitlamp examination revealed pseudophacodonesis, without obvious zonular laxity. We postulate that the rapid oscillation of an unsteady multifocal IOL during head or eye movement caused the optical steps to pass in front of the visual axis. Cataract surgeons must be aware of this potential, but rare, complication before deciding to implant a multifocal IOL.

A New Imaging Software To Evaluate The Centration Of Capsulorhexis And Intraocular Lens (IOL) After Cataract Surgery

Purpose: IOL centration and stability after cataract surgery is of high interest for cataract surgeons and IOL-producing companies. We present a new imaging software to evaluate the centration of the rhexis and the centration of the IOL after cataract surgery.Methods: We developed, in collaboration with the Biomedical Imaging Group (BIG), EPFL, Lausanne, a new working tool in order to assess precisely outcomes after IOL-implantation, such as ideal capsulorhexis and IOL-centration. The software is a plug-in of ImageJ, a general-purpose image processing and image-analysis package. The specifications of this software are: evaluation of the rhexis-centration and evaluation the position of the IOL in the posterior chamber. The end points are to analyze the quality of the centration of a rhexis after cataract surgery, the deformation of the rhexis with capsular bag retraction and the centration of the IOL after implantation.Results: This software delivers tools to interactively measure the distances between limbus, IOL and capsulorhexis and its changes over time. The user is invited to adjust nodes of three radial curves for the limbus, rhexis and the optic of the IOL. The radial distances of the curves are computed to evaluate the IOL implantation. The user is also able to define patterns for ideal capsulorhexis and optimal IOL-centration. We are going to present examples of calculations after cataract surgery.Conclusions: Evaluation of the centration of the rhexis and of the IOL after cataract surgery is an important end point for optimal IOL implantation after cataract surgery. Especially multifocal or accommodative lenses need a precise position in the bag with a good stability over time. This software is able to evaluate these parameters just after the surgery but also its changes over time. The results of these evaluations can lead to an optimizing of surgical procedures and materials.

Visual outcomes and pacient satisfaction follwing implantation of a supplementary multifocal IOL in patients undergoing cataract surgery

Purpose: To assess visual outcomes and patient satisfaction following implantation of the Sulcoflex® multifocal intraocular lens (IOL; Rayner Intraocular Lenses Ltd., Hove, UK) in a procedure combining capsular bag lens implantation with sulcus placement of the Sulcoflex® IOL. Setting: Instituto de Oftalmologia de Assis, Assis, SP, Brazil. Methods: Cataract patients > 45 years, with hyperopia ≥ 1.50 D and potential acuity measurement ≥ 20/30 undergoing Sulcoflex® multifocal IOL implantation were included. Monocular and binocular uncorrected near and distance visual acuity (VA) were evaluated at five days, one month, and three months postoperatively. Contrast sensitivity and refraction were measured in a subset of patients three months postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was assessed one month postoperative. Results: This non-consecutive case series comprised 25 eyes of 13 patients. Eleven eyes (52%) had pre-existing retinal pathologies. Monocular distance VA improved significantly at all follow-up visits. At final follow-up, 88% of eyes had monocular uncorrected distance VA (UDVA) of at least 20/25 and 24% had monocular UDVA of 20/20. All eyes had binocular UDVA of at least 20/25, and 58% had binocular UDVA of 20/20. Monocular uncorrected near vision (UNVA) was J1 in 68% of eyes and all patients had binocular UNVA of J1. Of all eyes studied, 92% and 58% achieved a spherical equivalent within 1 D and −0.5 D, respectively. The majority of patients reported satisfaction with visual outcomes. Complications included a postoperative intraocular pressure spike in four eyes. Conclusion: The Sulcoflex® multifocal IOL improves near and distance VA in cataract patients with retinal abnormalities and good VA potential.