Visual performance of optical films utilizing Spatio-Temporal Optical Phase technology.

SIGNIFICANCE: Spatio-Temporal Optical Phase technology utilizes film pairs containing optical elements applied to standard single-vision spectacle lenses. This technology provides a dynamic optical cue that may have efficacy in reducing the rate of myopia progression, but the visual performance of this technology is unknown. PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the visual performance of film pairs containing optical elements (tests) and a film pair with no optical elements (control). METHODS: In this randomized, single-masked, bilateral wear study, 42 participants aged 18 to 40 years wore four test designs (E, F-1, G, and F-2) and the control. Subjective data (subjective ratings [1 to 10 scale]: clarity of vision [far-away, intermediate, near] and vision [at night, while walking, overall satisfaction], and willingness to purchase [yes/no response]) were collected after 3 days. Visual acuity (VA)-based measures (monocular high/low-contrast VA [6 m], contrast sensitivity [6 m], and binocular high-contrast VA [6 m and 40 cm]) were collected at dispensing. Visual acuity-based measures were also collected while wearing spectacles with no film. Analyses were performed using linear mixed models and the χ2 test. Significance was set at 5%. RESULTS: The control performed better than any test for all subjective ratings (mean differences, 1.6 to 3.1 units: p<0.001), willingness to purchase (p<0.001), and designs F-1 and F-2 for binocular high-contrast VA at 40 cm (p=0.001 and p=0.01, respectively). Clarity of vision was significantly worse with F-2 compared with F-1 and G (p<0.001 and p=0.02, respectively). There were no differences between tests for any other subjective rating (p>0.1), willingness to purchase (p=0.11), or any VA-based measure (p>0.08). There were no differences between control and spectacles with no film for any VA-based measure (p>0.08). CONCLUSIONS: All four test film pairs reduced visual performance compared with control to a degree comparable with other myopia management devices. There was no difference in visual performance between three of the four test film pairs.

Refractive power profiles of commercially available soft multifocal contact lenses for myopia control.

PURPOSE: Lens power profiles can provide valuable insights on the imposed optical defocus and visual experience of contact lens wearers, especially in the context of myopia control. This study measured the refractive power profiles of multifocal soft contact lenses (MFCLs) currently used or that have the potential for use in myopia control using high spatial resolution aberrometry. The instrument's repeatability for determining MFCLs power profiles was also assessed. METHOD: The power profiles of 10 MFCLs of various designs (centre-distance, centre-near and extended depth of focus) were measured using the Lambda-X NIMOEVO, a phase shifting Schlieren-based device. Power profiles were graphically expressed as measured power at each chord position and the maximum add power was calculated. The repeatability of the NIMOEVO was expressed as the within-subject standard deviation at each chord position for a subset of five MFCLs. RESULTS: The measured distance powers differed from nominal powers for more than half of the MFCLs with a definable distance zone. There were variations in the chord position of the distance and near correction zones, rate of power transitions and calculated maximum add between the MFCLs which did not depend on lens design. For half of the MFCLs, the power profile shape was inconsistent between different nominal back vertex powers of the same design. The repeatability of the NIMOEVO was dependent on the lens design, with designs featuring faster rates of power change exhibiting worse repeatability. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in MFCL power profiles were found which were not adequately represented in labelling. This is likely due to the small number of parameters used to define lens power characteristics. Eye health care practitioners should be aware of potential differences in power profiles between different MFCLs, which will impact the retinal defocus introduced during lens wear and the wearer's visual experience.

Visual Performance and Binocular/Accommodative Function of S.T.O.P. Contact Lenses Compared With MiSight.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the visual performance and binocular/accommodative function of two novel S.T.O.P. design (F2 and DT) contact lenses against MiSight when worn by myopic, young adults. METHOD: This was a prospective, randomized, cross-over, single-masked study. Each lens was worn daily wear with overnight peroxide disinfection for approximately 7 days. Visual performance was assessed with subjective ratings (0-100): clarity of vision and lack of ghosting (far away, intermediate, and near), vision when driving, overall vision satisfaction, and with monocular high-contrast and low-contrast visual acuity (HCVA/LCVA) at 6 m, binocular HCVA (6 m, 70 cm, 50 cm, and 40 cm), binocular LCVA (6 m and 70 cm). Binocular function was assessed with heterophorias (3 m and 40 cm). Accommodative function was assessed with monocular accommodative facility (AF: 40 cm) and dynamic monocular accommodative response (AR: 6 m, 70 cm, and 40 cm). RESULTS: F2 was rated higher than MiSight for clarity of vision (near and intermediate) and lack-of-ghosting ( P <0.001), while MiSight was rated higher than DT for clarity of vision (near, P <0.001). MiSight was better than F2 and DT for monocular HCVA (6 m) and binocular HCVA (6 m and 40 cm, P ≤0.02), but the maximum difference was ≤2 letters. There were no differences between designs for heterophoria ( P =0.61) nor were there any differences between DT and MiSight for any accommodative measure ( P >0.1). F2 was higher for monocular-AF ( P =0.007) and lower for AR (70 cm and 40 cm; P ≤0.007) compared with MiSight. CONCLUSIONS: The visual performance and binocular/accommodative function of S.T.O.P. designs F2 and DT were comparable with MiSight. F2 outperformed MiSight in some aspects of subjective visual performance and monocular accommodative function.

Temperature affects the biomechanical response of in vitro non-human primate lenses during lens stretching.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of temperature on the accommodative response of non-human primate crystalline lenses during simulated accommodation. METHODS: Eight lenses from 7 cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis, ages: 4.5-7.3 years; post-mortem time: 17.0 ± 16.4 h) were mounted in a lens stretcher. Stretching experiments were performed on each lens at 24 °C (room temperature), then the tissue was warmed to 35 °C (intraocular temperature) and the stretching experiments were repeated. The lens diameter, thickness, anterior and posterior surface radii of curvature, optical power, and the stretching force (load) were measured at each stretch position and the linear optomechanical relationships were quantified: load-lens diameter, load-thickness, power-load, load-anterior radius, and load-posterior radius. The rate of change for each parameter was quantified by performing a linear regression. The slopes of the linear regressions were compared at the two temperatures using a paired sample t-test. RESULTS: The average changes in the lens with stretching at 24 °C and 35 °C were: 3.07 ± 0.17 and 2.58 ± 0.15 for load-lens diameter (g/mm), -2.38 ± 0.20 and -2.00 ± 0.32 for load-thickness (g/mm), -13.35 ± 1.21 and -13.75 ± 1.26 for power-load (D/g), 0.41 ± 0.10 and 0.34 ± 0.05 for load-anterior radius of curvature (g/mm), and 1.35 ± 0.24 and 1.31 ± 0.35 for load-posterior radius of curvature (g/mm), respectively. The changes in load-diameter and load-thickness with lens stretching were significantly different for the two temperatures. CONCLUSIONS: Temperature influences the change in lens shape observed during simulated accommodation in non-human primate lenses. These results suggest that lens stretching experiments and other optomechanical measurement techniques on ex vivo crystalline lenses be conducted at 35 °C and that the temperature of the tissue sample be documented and maintained constant to ensure repeatability.

Myopia control with novel central and peripheral plus contact lenses and extended depth of focus contact lenses: 2 year results from a randomised clinical trial.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine myopia control efficacy with novel contact lenses (CL) that (1) reduced both central and peripheral defocus, and (2) provided extended depth of focus with better global retinal image quality for points on, and anterior to, the retina and degraded for points posterior to the retina. METHODS: Children (n = 508, 8-13 years) with cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) -0.75 to -3.50D were enrolled in a prospective, double blind trial and randomised to one of five groups: (1) single vision, silicone hydrogel (SH) CL; (2) two groups wearing SH CL that imposed myopic defocus across peripheral and central retina (test CL I and II; +1.00D centrally and +2.50 and +1.50 for CL I and II at 3 mm semi-chord respectively); and (3) two groups wearing extended depth of focus (EDOF) hydrogel CL incorporating higher order aberrations to modulate retinal image quality (test CL III and IV; extended depth of focus of up to +1.75D and +2.50D respectively). Cycloplegic autorefraction and axial length (AL) measurements were conducted at six monthly intervals. Compliance to lens wear was assessed with a diary and collected at each visit. Additionally, subjective responses to various aspects of lens wear were assessed. The trial commenced in February 2014 and was terminated in January 2017 due to site closure. Myopia progression over time between groups was compared using linear mixed models and where needed post hoc analysis with Bonferroni corrections conducted. RESULTS: Myopia progressed with control CL -1.12 ± 0.51D/0.58 ± 0.27 mm for SE/AL at 24 months. In comparison, all test CL had reduced progression with SE/AL ranging from -0.78D to -0.87D/0.41-0.46 mm at 24 months (AL: p < 0.05 for all test CL; SE p < 0.05 for test CL III and IV) and represented a reduction in axial length elongation of about 22% to 32% and reduction in spherical equivalent of 24% to 32%. With test CL, a greater slowing ranging from 26% to 43% was observed in compliant wearers (≥6 days per week; Control CL: -0.64D/0.30 mm and -1.14D/0.58 mm vs test CL: -0.42D to -0.47D/0.12-0.18 mm and -0.70 to -0.81D/0.19-0.25 mm at 12 and 24 months respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Contact lenses that either imposed myopic defocus at the retina or modulated retinal image quality resulted in a slower progression of myopia with greater efficacy seen in compliant wearers. Importantly, there was no difference in the myopia control provided by either of these strategies.

Mechanical Properties of Contact Lens Materials.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the mechanical properties of commonly available soft contact lens materials and compare results using custom-built MicroTensometer. METHODS: The Young modulus, parameters for stress relaxation, and toughness of 18 types of single vision soft contact lenses were measured using custom-built MicroTensometer. Five lenses of each type were soaked in standard phosphate buffered saline and measured at a temperature of 35°C. Each lens was flattened and sliced into a rectangular strip sample using two parallel blades. RESULTS: The Acuvue Moist 1-Day and SofLens Daily lenses measured lowest moduli, whereas Air Optix Night & Day Aqua and Premio measured the highest. The measured moduli for silicone hydrogel materials were generally higher compared with the hydrogels except for Dailies AquaComfort Plus. The exponential curve fitted over the decay in stress showed a consistent time constant of approximately 10 sec for most lens types measured. However, the amplitude constant varied from 2.84% for SofLens Daily to 22.39% for Acuvue TruEye 1-Day. The toughness results showed that Dailies AquaComfort Plus is strong but not necessarily tough. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanical properties of commonly prescribed soft contact lens materials were measured using a dedicated instrument. Its reliability was demonstrated, and modulus results were compared against published data from manufacturers and other research groups. Agreement was generally good, with only a few exceptions exceeding 15% difference. The more recently released silicone hydrogel lens types have reduced modulus, approaching that of medium or high water content hydrogel materials.

Power Profiles of Commercial Multifocal Soft Contact Lenses.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the optical power profiles of commercially available soft multifocal contact lenses and compare their optical designs. METHODS: The power profiles of 38 types of multifocal contact lenses-three lenses each-were measured in powers +6D, +3D, +1D, -1D, -3D, and -6D using NIMO TR1504 (Lambda-X, Belgium). All lenses were measured in phosphate buffered saline across 8 mm optic zone diameter. Refractive index of each lens material was measured using CLR 12-70 (Index Instruments, UK), which was used for converting measured power in the medium to in-air radial power profiles. RESULTS: Three basic types of power profiles were identified: center-near, center-distance, and concentric-zone ring-type designs. For most of the lens types, the relative plus with respect to prescription power was lower than the corresponding spectacle add. For some lens types, the measured power profiles were shifted by up to 1D across the power range relative to their labeled power. Most of the lenses were designed with noticeable amounts of spherical aberration. The sign and magnitude of spherical aberration can either be power dependent or consistent across the power range. CONCLUSIONS: Power profiles can vary widely between the different lens types; however, certain similarities were also observed between some of the center-near designs. For the more recently released lens types, there seems to be a trend emerging to reduce the relative plus with respect to prescription power, include negative spherical aberration, and keep the power profiles consistent across the power range.

Peripheral Refraction and Aberration Profiles with Multifocal Lenses.

SIGNIFICANCE: The amount of central or peripheral myopic shift, as induced by different multifocal contact lenses when viewing objects at distance or near, may provide insights on the potential efficacy for slowing eye growth. PURPOSE: The present study aims to compare peripheral refraction and higher-order aberration profiles of four multifocal contact lenses with a single vision control lens. METHODS: Thirty-five myopes (age 21.2 ± 2.1 years) completed the trial, of whom 16 wore Air Optix Aqua and Proclear Multifocal Distance and Near (Group 1, spherical equivalent: -2.90 ± 0.95D), whereas 19 wore Air Optix Aqua, Air Optix Multifocal, and PureVision Multifocal (Group 2, spherical equivalent: -2.95 ± 0.78D). Refraction and aberration profiles with lenses were measured using the BHVI-EyeMapper with (-2.00 to -5.00D in 1.00D steps) and without (+1.00D fogging) accommodation. Data were quantified using M2/4 (2nd and 2nd + 4th order), J0, J45, and higher-order aberration coefficients coma C[3, 1] and spherical aberration C[4, 0]. RESULTS: The center-distance lens exhibited a relative peripheral myopic shift in M2/4 and J0, positive on-axis C[4, 0], negative on-axis C[3, 1] and on-axis M4 was less negative for accommodative demands ≤-3.00D (P < .05). Inversely, the center-near lenses showed a relative peripheral hyperopic shift in M2/4 and J0, negative on-axis C[4, 0], positive on-axis C[3, 1] and on-axis M4 was more negative for demands of -2.00 and -3.00D (P < .05). Independent of lens type, relative peripheral M4 significantly decreased during accommodation. Accounting for C[4, 0], a greater change in relative M profiles and accommodative responses was found for multifocal lenses. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the hypothesis that myopic retinal defocus counters eye growth, center-near multifocal lenses exhibited the preferred on-axis features, i.e., producing a central myopic shift at near compared to the control. The center-distance lens exhibited preferred off-axis features, producing relative peripheral myopia, which increased further during accommodation.

Impact of Spherical Aberration Terms on Multifocal Contact Lens Performance.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of the primary (PSA) and secondary (SSA) spherical aberration terms on visual performance (VP) in presbyopes, as measured using multifocal (MFCL) soft contact lenses on eye. METHODS: Seventeen presbyopes (age: 55.1 ± 6.9 years) wore seven commercial lenses (four center-near (MFCL N), one center-distance (MFCL D), one bifocal, and one single vision control). Unaided and with each lens on eye, the PSA and SSA terms were obtained with an aberrometer, the BHVI-EyeMapper (low illumination, natural and 4 mm pupil diameter). High- and low-contrast distance visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, high-contrast visual acuities at near, and range of clear vision were measured. In addition, subjective VP variables included clarity of vision at distance and near, ghosting, and overall vision satisfaction. Pearson's correlation was used to determine the association between the PSA and SSA terms and the VP variables. RESULTS: PSA (natural pupil) was more negative (P < .05) with the MFCL N (mean PSA = -0.053 ± 0.080 µm) and bifocal (PSA = +0.005 ± 0.067 µm) lenses and more positive with the MFCL D lens (PSA = +0.208 ± 0.160 µm) than the control (+0.067 ± 0.072 µm). SSA (natural pupil) was significantly more positive for the MFCL N lenses (mean SSA = +0.025 ± 0.029 µm) compared to the control (SSA = -0.001 ± 0.017 µm). PSA and SSA terms were significantly (P < .05) correlated with 78% and 56% of VP variables, respectively, but the correlation coefficients were weak, ranging between |0.210| and |0.334|. Although distance variables showed improved VP with more positive PSA or negative SSA, most near variables showed improved VP with more negative PSA. Range of clear focus was greater for more negative PSA terms. CONCLUSIONS: The amount and direction of PSA and SSA terms, as measured with different MFCLs on eye, can affect VP at different distances. Results of this study may provide useful information when designing new or optimize existing MFCLs for improved VP at specific distances.

Short-Term Visual Performance of Novel Extended Depth-of-Focus Contact Lenses.

PURPOSE: To compare the objective and subjective visual performance of a novel contact lens which extends depth of focus by deliberate manipulation of higher-order spherical aberrations and a commercially available zonal-refractive multifocal lens. METHODS: A prospective, cross-over, randomized, single-masked, short-term clinical trial comprising 41 presbyopes (age 45 to 70 years) wearing novel Extended Depth of Focus lenses (EDOF) and ACUVUE OAYS for Presbyopia (AOP). Each design was assessed on different days with a minimum overnight wash-out. Objective measures comprised high-contrast visual acuity (HCVA, logMAR) at 6 m, 70 cm, 50 cm, and 40 cm; low-contrast visual acuity (LCVA, logMAR) and contrast sensitivity (log units) at 6 m; and stereopsis (seconds of arc) at 40 cm. HCVA at 70 cm, 50 cm, and 40 cm were measured as "comfortable acuity" rather than conventional resolution acuity. Subjective performance was assessed on a 1-10 numeric rating scale for clarity of vision and ghosting at distance, intermediate and near, overall vision satisfaction, ocular comfort, and lens purchase. Statistical analysis included repeated measures ANOVA and paired t tests. RESULTS: HCVA, clarity of vision, and ghosting with EDOF were significantly better than AOP (p < 0.01); however, differences were dependent on testing distances and add groups. Post hoc analysis showed EDOF was significantly better than AOP for HCVA at 70 cm (0.11 ± 0.11 vs. 0.21 ± 0.16, p < 0.001), 50 cm (0.26 ± 0.17 vs. 0.36 ± 0.18, p = 0.003), 40 cm (0.42 ± 0.17 vs. 0.52 ± 0.21, p = 0.001), and LCVA at 6 m (0.22 ± 0.08 vs. 0.27 ± 0.12, p = 0.024). EDOF was significantly better than AOP for clarity of vision at distance (7.7 ± 1.6 vs. 6.8 ± 2.3, p = 0.029), intermediate (8.8 ± 1.4 vs. 7.0 ± 2.2, p < 0.001), and near (7.4 ± 2.4 vs. 5.2 ± 2.7, p < 0.001), ghosting at distance (9.1 ± 1.2 vs. 8.1 ± 2.5, p = 0.005), and overall vision satisfaction (7.6 ± 1.6 vs. 6.0 ± 2.6, p < 0.001). More participants chose to purchase EDOF compared to AOP (61 vs. 39%) and significantly more chose to only-purchase EDOF compared to only-purchase AOP (27 vs. 5%, p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with AOP, EDOF lenses provide better intermediate and near vision performance in presbyopic participants without compromising distance vision.

The BHVI-EyeMapper: peripheral refraction and aberration profiles.

PURPOSE: The aim of this article was to present the optical design of a new instrument (BHVI-EyeMapper, EM), which is dedicated to rapid peripheral wavefront measurements across the visual field for distance and near, and to compare the peripheral refraction and higher-order aberration profiles obtained in myopic eyes with and without accommodation. METHODS: Central and peripheral refractive errors (M, J180, and J45) and higher-order aberrations (C[3, 1], C[3, 3], and C[4, 0]) were measured in 26 myopic participants (mean [±SD] age, 20.9 [±2.0] years; mean [±SD] spherical equivalent, -3.00 [±0.90] diopters [D]) corrected for distance. Measurements were performed along the horizontal visual field with (-2.00 to -5.00 D) and without (+1.00 D fogging) accommodation. Changes as a function of accommodation were compared using tilt and curvature coefficients of peripheral refraction and aberration profiles. RESULTS: As accommodation increased, the relative peripheral refraction profiles of M and J180 became significantly (p < 0.05) more negative and the profile of M became significantly (p < 0.05) more asymmetric. No significant differences were found for the J45 profiles (p > 0.05). The peripheral aberration profiles of C[3, 1], C[3, 3], and C[4, 0] became significantly (p < 0.05) less asymmetric as accommodation increased, but no differences were found in the curvature. CONCLUSIONS: The current study showed that significant changes in peripheral refraction and higher-order aberration profiles occurred during accommodation in myopic eyes. With its extended measurement capabilities, that is, permitting rapid peripheral refraction and higher-order aberration measurements up to visual field angles of ±50 degrees for distance and near (up to -5.00 D), the EM is a new advanced instrument that may provide additional insights in the ongoing quest to understand and monitor myopia development.

Influence of contact lens power profile on peripheral refractive error.

PURPOSE: To measure the power profile across the optic zone (OZ) of four commercially available soft contact lenses and establish the impact on the peripheral refractive error of the eye. METHODS: The power profiles of a spherical conventional hydrogel contact lens (etafilcon A, J&J Vistakon, Jacksonville, FL USA) and three spherical silicone hydrogel contact lenses (lotrafilcon A and B, CIBA Vision, Duluth, GA USA; enfilcon A, CooperVision, Pleasanton, CA USA) with a labeled power of -3.00 and -6.00 diopters were measured using a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor power mapping device. Central and peripheral refraction across the horizontal meridian (nasal and temporal visual field at 20, 30, and 40 degrees) was measured with an open-field autorefractor (Shin Nippon NVision K5001, Osaka Japan) with and without contact lenses in 26 myopic subjects. The relative peripheral refractive error on the eye was estimated and compared with and without contact lenses and between contact lenses. RESULTS: Differences in the distribution of the power profile across the OZ were apparent between contact lens types and powers. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between contact lens types for their effect on on-axis refraction. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were found at all peripheral retinal eccentricities between contact lens types. CONCLUSIONS: For a given central power, the four contact lenses exhibited variations in optical power across the OZ of the lens. The distribution of optical power across the OZ has an influence on the peripheral refractive error of the eye.

Validating a new device for measuring tear evaporation rates.

PURPOSE: To calibrate and validate a commercially available dermatology instrument to measure tear evaporation rate of contact lens wearers. METHODS: A dermatology instrument was modified by attaching a swim goggle cup such that the cup sealed around the eye socket. Results for the unmodified instrument are dependent on probe area and enclosed volume. Calibration curves were established using a model eye, to account for individual variations in chamber volume and exposed area. Fifteen participants were recruited and the study included a contact lens wear and a no contact lens wear stage. Day and diurnal variation of the measurements were assessed by taking the measurement three times a day over 2 days. The coefficient of repeatability of the measurement was calculated and a linear mixed model assessed the influence of humidity, temperature, contact lens wear, day and diurnal variations on tear evaporation rate. The associations between variables were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Absolute evaporation rates with and without contact lens wear were calculated based on the new calibration. The measurements were most repeatable during the evening with no lens wear (COR = 49 g m⁻² h) and least repeatable during the evening with contact lens wear (COR = 93 g m⁻² h). Humidity (p = 0.007), and contact lens wear (p < 0.01), significantly affected the tear evaporation rate. However, temperature (p = 0.54) diurnal variation (p = 0.85) and different days (p = 0.65) had no significant effect after controlling for humidity. CONCLUSION: Tear evaporation rates can be measured using a modified dermatology instrument. Measurements were higher and more variable with lens wear consistent with previous literature. Control of environmental conditions is important as a higher humidity results in a reduced evaporation rate.

Chromatic dispersion of soft contact lens materials.

PURPOSE: To investigate and evaluate the chromatic dispersion of various hydrogel and silicon hydrogel contact lens materials. METHODS: Eighteen different soft contact lens materials with high and low water content in lens power of -1.00 DS were measured by one operator at temperature of 20 °C ± 0.5° soaked in ISO standard phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and in their respective packaging solutions (PS). An analogue Abbe refractometer (Model Zuzi 320, AUXILAB, S.L., Navarra, Spain) was used for refractive index (RI) measurements at 5 different wavelengths. All contact lenses were presented in a random and masked order to the operator. The Bland-Altman method with 95 % limits of agreement (LoA) and coefficient of repeatability (CoR) was used to characterise the repeatability of refractive index measurements. The Abbe numbers for each material were calculated by entering the measured and interpolated refractive indices into the Abbe number equation. One-way ANOVA analysis was used to test if there were significant differences between the 5 different wavelengths (470 nm-680 nm) within each material. An unpaired t-test was used to determine if there were differences in refractive index or dispersion between packaging solution and PBS results. RESULTS: Nelfilcon A (Dailies Aqua Comfort Plus) soaked in PS showed the best repeatability of all 18 examined soft contact lenses across all wavelengths with an average refractive index of 1.3848 for all 6 contact lenses with a standard deviation of 0.00064. The 95 % limits of agreement were between 1.3835 and 1.3860. The mean coefficient of repeatability for nelfilcon A was 0.00125. For contact lenses soaked in ISO Standard PBS comfilcon A (Biofinity) had the best repeatability. The average refractive index of all 6 contact lenses was 1.4041 with a standard deviation of 0.00031 and a coefficient of repeatability of 0.00060. The 95 % limits of agreement were between 1.4035 and 1.4047. The analysis with One-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons involving Holm-Sidak post-hoc, showed that there are significant differences (p < 0.001, Fratio = 376.2 between wavelengths and Fratio = 1559 between different refractive indices) in the refractive index of most common lens materials across the visible wavelength range. Based on unpaired t-test, there is no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the Abbe numbers of the tested lens materials whether they have been placed in the packaging solution or in standard PBS (p > 0.05, 95 % CI = -4.8070 to 5.8680, t = 0.2054). The Abbe numbers for the calculated contact lenses soaked in PS ranged between 43.7 and 89.9. For contact lenses stored in PBS the range was between 46.3 and 81.6. CONCLUSION: There is a good repeatability between repeated RI measurements taken from the same lens and from the same material. The significant differences between the refractive indices across the 5 different wavelengths showed the presence of chromatic dispersion in the 18 evaluated soft contact lens materials. Furthermore, it could be shown that there is no significant difference in dispersion whether the contact lenses are soaked in standard PBS or in their respective packaging solutions. With no other published data available as a reference, absolute accuracy of the calculated Abbe numbers remains to be confirmed, however, this study did confirm that significant chromatic dispersion exists in soft contact lens materials.

Optical performance of multifocal soft contact lenses via a single-pass method.

PURPOSE: A physical model eye capable of carrying soft contact lenses (CLs) was used as a platform to evaluate optical performance of several commercial multifocals (MFCLs) with high- and low-add powers and a single-vision control. METHODS: Optical performance was evaluated at three pupil sizes, six target vergences, and five CL-correcting positions using a spatially filtered monochromatic (632.8 nm) light source. The various target vergences were achieved by using negative trial lenses. A photosensor in the retinal plane recorded the image point-spread that enabled the computation of visual Strehl ratios. The centration of CLs was monitored by an additional integrated en face camera. Hydration of the correcting lens was maintained using a humidity chamber and repeated instillations of rewetting saline drops. RESULTS: All the MFCLs reduced performance for distance but considerably improved performance along the range of distance to near target vergences, relative to the single-vision CL. Performance was dependent on add power, design, pupil, and centration of the correcting CLs. Proclear (D) design produced good performance for intermediate vision, whereas Proclear (N) design performed well at near vision (p < 0.05). AirOptix design exhibited good performance for distance and intermediate vision. PureVision design showed improved performance across the test vergences, but only for pupils ≥4 mm in diameter. Performance of Acuvue bifocal was comparable with other MFCLs, but only for pupils >4 mm in diameter. Acuvue Oasys bifocal produced performance comparable with single-vision CL for most vergences. CONCLUSIONS: Direct measurement of single-pass images at the retinal plane of a physical model eye used in conjunction with various MFCLs is demonstrated. This method may have utility in evaluating the relative effectiveness of commercial and prototype designs.

Lateral pupil alignment tolerance in peripheral refractometry.

PURPOSE: To investigate the tolerance to lateral pupil misalignment in peripheral refraction compared with central refraction. METHODS: A Shin-Nippon NVision-K5001 open-view auto-refractor was used to measure central and peripheral refraction (30° temporal and 30° nasal visual field) of the right eyes of 10 emmetropic and 10 myopic participants. At each of the three fixation angles, five readings were recorded for each of the following alignment positions relative to pupil center: centrally aligned, 1 and 2 mm temporally aligned, and 1 and 2 mm nasally aligned. RESULTS: For central fixation, increasing dealignment from pupil center produced a quadratic decrease (r ≥ 0.98, p < 0.04) in the refractive power vectors M and J180 which, when interpolated, reached clinical significance (i.e., ≥ 0.25 diopter for M and ≥ 0.125 diopter for J180 and J45) for an alignment error of 0.79 mm or greater. M and J180 as measured in the 30° temporal and 30° nasal visual field led to a significant linear correlation (r ≥ 0.94, p < 0.02) as pupil dealignment gradually changed from temporal to nasal. As determined from regression analysis, a pupil alignment error of 0.20 mm or greater would introduce errors in M and J180 that are clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Tolerance to lateral pupil alignment error decreases strongly in the periphery compared with the greater tolerance in central refraction. Thus, precise alignment of the entrance pupil with the instrument axis is critical for accurate and reliable peripheral refraction.

Physical human model eye and methods of its use to analyse optical performance of soft contact lenses.

A bench-top physical model eye that closely replicates both anatomical and optical properties of an average human eye was designed and constructed. The cornea was sourced from a flouro-polymer with refractive index (RI) of 1.376 and crystalline lenses were made of Boston RGP polymers, EO and Equalens II, with an equivalent RI of 1.429 and 1.423 respectively. These materials served to make crystalline lens components of different age groups and accommodative states. De-Ionized water, with RI of 1.334 represented both aqueous and vitreous humor. The complementary metal-oxide sensor of a PixelLink digital camera with a resolution of 5MP and a 2.2 microm pixel pitch, hosted on a motor-base, served as the 'acting' retina. The translation and rotary functions of the motor-base facilitated the simulation of different states of ametropia and assessment of peripheral visual function, respectively. We validated one of its configurations to suit normal viewing conditions and results from the on and off-axis optical quality measurements are presented. As a demonstration of potential practical uses, several corrective soft contact lenses were placed on the model eye and their optical performance evaluated.

Inherent ocular spherical aberration and multifocal contact lens optical performance.

PURPOSE: The role of inherent spherical aberration (SA) in the optical performance of presbyopic eyes corrected with simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses was investigated. METHODS: Presbyopic schematic eyes were modeled with partial accommodative function to represent 45- and 55-year olds and were further classified into five categories based on their magnitude of inherent SA. Two representative ametropic models of each category were corrected with four multifocal contact lens iterations. High-add designs were used to correct 55-year olds, whereas low-add designs served 45-year ones. The overall performances were gauged in terms of visual Strehl ratio and area under through-focus modulation transfer function. RESULTS: The root mean square error of higher order aberrations of the eye and correcting lens combination were significantly different (p < 0.05) within the five inherent SA models, for all pupils and accommodative states. Area under through-focus modulation transfer function at all three spatial frequencies tested was found to be significantly different (p < 0.05) within the five SA models. Visual Strehl ratio measures were also different but statistically insignificant. Eyes having the same refractive prescriptions but diverse levels of inherent SA perform differently even when corrected with identical multifocal designs, and the performance is dependent on pupil size and level of residual accommodation. Overall, the distinct performances within the five SA models were optically relevant for pupils ∼4 mm and greater. Among the designs investigated, the low-add multizone iteration demonstrated performance relatively independent of the inherent SA because of the favorable interactions of defocus with primary, secondary, and tertiary SA. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm that the coupling of ocular SA and correcting lens aberrations contributes to the multifocal functionality.

Refractive index of soft contact lens materials measured in packaging solution and standard phosphate buffered saline and the effect on back vertex power calculation.

PURPOSE: To measure the refractive index (RI) of commonly available soft contact lens (CL) materials, their packaging solutions and compare to the manufacturers' nominal RI. The relationship between RI versus water content, and the effect of inaccurate RI when converting lens power measured in solution to in-air back vertex power were examined. METHODS: The RI of 18 single vision soft CL materials were measured using CLR 12-70 digital refractometer. Three lenses of each material were measured, in their packaging solution and then after soaking in standard phosphate buffered saline (PBS). The RIs of packaging solution were also measured. Accuracy requirements for correct wet to dry power conversion based on thick lens formula were projected. RESULTS: The standard deviation between three samples was less than 0.005. The measured RI ranged from 1.3744 ± 0.001-1.4265 ± 0.0004 for PBS soaked and from 1.3739 ± 0.0003-1.4264 ± 0.0024 for packaging solution soaked materials. Comparing nominal with mean measured PBS and packaging solution RIs, 5 and 3 lens materials, respectively, fell outside ISO tolerance. The packaging solution RI of DailiesAquaComfortPlus had the largest difference of 0.0040, compared to RI of standard PBS. For converting lens power measured in PBS to in-air power, the difference between measured and nominal RI of 0.0104 would result in wrongly calculated in-air power 0.99 D for a -6.00 D lens. CONCLUSION: The CLR 12-70 is reliable and accurate refractometer for the measurement of soft CL materials. Accurate RI measurements are of relevance with increased use of wavefront sensors to measure lens power while they are immersed in solution. Even small errors in solution or material RI can lead to significant errors in converted in-air power. To obtain valid in-air lens power results, measurement conditions must match the material and solution RIs used for the conversion.

Peripheral refraction and spherical aberration profiles with single vision, bifocal and multifocal soft contact lenses.

PURPOSE: To compare the peripheral refraction and spherical aberration profiles along three visual field meridians of 16 commercial single vision (SV), bifocal (BF) and multifocal (MF) test contact lenses with a single vision control. METHOD: Forty-four participants [24.2±2.4 years, SE: -0.50 to -4.50D] were randomly fitted, contra-laterally, with 6 SV's [Air Optix Aqua (control), Acuvue Oasys, Biofinity, Clariti, Night & Day and Proclear], 3 BF's [Acuvue Bifocal low and high add, MiSight] and 8 MF's [Proclear D & N in 1.5 and 2.5D adds; AirOptix, PureVision low & high adds]. Peripheral refraction was performed across horizontal, oblique and vertical meridians, with lenses on eye using the BHVI-EyeMapper. The power vectors M, J0, J45 and the spherical aberration coefficient were analysed. The peripheral refraction and aberration profiles of the test lenses were compared with the profiles of the control lens using curvature and slope coefficients. RESULTS: Compared to the control, a relative peripheral hyperopic shift (M), a less negative J0 curvature coefficient along the horizontal meridian, a less positive J0 curvature coefficient along the vertical meridian, a less negative J45 curvature coefficient along the oblique meridian and a more positive spherical aberration curvature coefficient along most meridians was seen with the Acuvue Bifocal and all center-near multifocal lenses. For the center-distance multifocal lenses the direction of the curvature coefficients of the same refraction and aberration components was opposite to that of the center-near lenses. The greatest differences in the slope coefficients when compared to the control were found for the Acuvue Bifocal lenses and all multifocal contact lenses for the refractive component M and the spherical aberration coefficient along the horizontal visual field meridian, with the Acuvue Bifocal and the center-near multifocal lenses having more positive coefficients and the center-distance lenses having more negative coefficients. CONCLUSION: When worn on eye, different commercially available lens types produce differences in the direction and magnitude of the peripheral refraction and spherical aberration profiles along different visual field meridians. This information may be relevant to refractive development and myopia control.