Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Visual performance with multifocal soft contact lenses in non-presbyopic myopic eyes during an adaptation period.
Fedtke, Cathleen; Ehrmann, Klaus; Thomas, Varghese; Bakaraju, Ravi C.
Afiliación
  • Fedtke C; The Brien Holden Vision Institute, Clinical Trial Research Centre, r.bakaraju@brienholdenvision.org.
  • Ehrmann K; The Brien Holden Vision Institute, Clinical Trial Research Centre, r.bakaraju@brienholdenvision.org.
  • Thomas V; School of Optometry and Vision Science, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia, r.bakaraju@brienholdenvision.org.
  • Bakaraju RC; The Brien Holden Vision Institute, Clinical Trial Research Centre, r.bakaraju@brienholdenvision.org.
Clin Optom (Auckl) ; 8: 37-46, 2016.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30214347
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

Multifocal soft contact lenses (MFCLs) have been proposed and used for controlling the rate of myopia progression; however, little is known on the performance and adaptation with MFCLs in non-presbyopes. This study aims to evaluate the visual performance of four commercially available MFCLs in non-presbyopic myopic eyes during an adaptation period.

METHODS:

Fifty-two experienced myopic contact lens wearers (67% female; mean age 21.4±2.0 years) were enrolled in this trial and 40 completed the trial. Twenty-six participants (Group 1) wore Lotrafilcon B single vision (SV, control), Omafilcon A MFCL center-distance (D) and center-near (N) and the other 26 participants (Group 2) wore Lotrafilcon B SV, Lotrafilcon B MFCL N, and Balafilcon A MFCL N. Lens order was randomized. Participants wore each allocated lens for a minimum of 8 days over four scheduled visits (dispensing and three follow-up visits) with a 1-week washout period between the lens types. At each visit, high-contrast visual acuity (HCVA) (in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]) and seven subjective performance variables (via questionnaire) were obtained. Power profiles of each lens type, pupil size, and contact lens centration, with lens placed on the eye, were measured.

RESULTS:

The SV control outperformed the MFCLs in all variables (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in HCVA over time, with the exception of monocular HCVA with Omafilcon A MFCL N, which at the end of the adaptation period had significantly (P<0.05) improved by 0.10 logMAR. No differences were found between visits for any subjective variables. Subjectively, Lotrafilcon B MFCL N performed best and was the only lens that did not decenter significantly compared to the SV control. Conversely, Omafilcon A MFCL N was the worst performing and most decentered lens (P<0.05, y=-0.39 mm), with the greatest plus area under the power profile.

CONCLUSION:

MFCLs with greatest power variation across the optic zone, a greater plus area under the distance labeled power profile, and/or lenses that were significantly decentered resulted in the lowest subjective ratings. Over time, quality of vision with MFCLs did not change in non-presbyopic myopic participants, with the exception of Omafilcon A MFCL N, which showed some adaptation effects.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials Idioma: En Revista: Clin Optom (Auckl) Año: 2016 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials Idioma: En Revista: Clin Optom (Auckl) Año: 2016 Tipo del documento: Article
...