The Relationship between Visual Acuity, Subjective Vision, and Willingness to Purchase Simultaneous-image Contact Lenses.

SIGNIFICANCE: This study reports that subjective vision ratings are better indicators of willingness to purchase simultaneous-image contact lenses than visual acuities and are more valuable in evaluating contact lens performance. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between visual acuities, subjective vision ratings, and willingness to purchase simultaneous-image contact lenses in presbyopes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of visual acuities, subjective vision ratings, and willingness to purchase from final visits of two masked, crossover clinical trials of nine prototype and four commercially available simultaneous-image contact lenses in 141 presbyopes was performed. Pearson correlation and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve determined correlations between variables. RESULTS: Most subjective vision ratings were weakly correlated (r < 0.3) with visual acuity at all distances and illumination. Moderate correlations (r, 95% confidence intervals) were found between overall vision satisfaction ratings with visual acuity at 40 (-0.34, -0.28 to -0.40) and 50 cm (-0.33, -0.27 to -0.39), near-vision ratings (daytime) with visual acuity at 40 (-0.48, -0.43 to -0.53) and 50 cm (-0.46; -0.41 to -0.51), and intermediate-vision ratings (daytime) with visual acuity at 40 (-0.39, -0.33 to -0.45) and 50 cm (-0.41, -0.35 to -0.46). Highest discrimination for willingness to purchase was with overall vision satisfaction (area under curve, 0.93) and vision stability (daytime; area under curve, 0.77). Ratings from 4 to 9 for vision satisfaction showed a linear increase in willingness to purchase: a 1-unit increase in vision satisfaction increased willingness to purchase by 20%. Ratings lower than 4 had 0% willingness to purchase. Other subjective ratings showed similar relationships, albeit only 10 to 15% increase in willingness to purchase per unit increase for ratings higher than 4. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective vision ratings are a better indicator of simultaneous-image contact lens performance than visual acuity. Overall vision satisfaction and vision stability are key predictors of willingness to purchase. Subjective vision ratings should be used to evaluate performance rather than visual acuity alone.

Vision Performance and Accommodative/Binocular Function in Children Wearing Prototype Extended Depth-of-Focus Contact Lenses.

OBJECTIVE: To assess two prototype contact lenses (CLs) that extend depth of focus through deliberate manipulation of multiple spherical aberration terms (extended depth-of-focus [EDOF]) for visual performance, accommodative and binocular function, and objective static near refraction against a single-vision (SV) CL. METHOD: This was a prospective, randomized, cross-over, single-masked (participant) clinical trial in which 16 myopic children wore 2 prototype CLs (EDOFL/EDOFH) designed for presbyopes and a SV CL, each for one week. Measurements comprised monocular and binocular high-contrast visual acuity (HCVA: 6 m, 40 cm), binocular low-contrast visual acuity (LCVA: 6 m), contrast sensitivity (CS: 6 m), phorias (3 m, 33 cm), monocular-accommodative facility (33 cm), and objective static refraction (spherical equivalent M) at zero, -3, and -5 D vergences. Measurements were taken 10 min after lens insertion. Subjective response was assessed using take-home questionnaires comprising vision clarity (distance/intermediate/near), vision quality (haloes at night/ghosting), vision stability when moving (playing sport/using stairs), and comfort. RESULTS: Single vision was significantly better than both EDOF CLs for monocular HCVA, LCVA, and CS (6 m); vision clarity (distance), ghosting (P≤0.040), and EDOFL for binocular HCVA (6 m, P=0.047). M was significantly closer to the ideal objective static refraction at -3 and -5 D vergences (P≤0.004) with both EDOF compared with SV CLs. There were no differences between CLs for any other variable (P≥0.169). CONCLUSION: Extended depth-of-focus CLs caused minimal disruption to the accommodative and binocular system compared with SV CLs when worn by myopic children. Future EDOF designs for children should reduce the difference between SV for distance vision and vision quality while maintaining the same performance for intermediate and near.

Visual Performance of Daily-disposable Multifocal Soft Contact Lenses: A Randomized, Double-blind Clinical Trial.

SIGNIFICANCE: The present study highlights the differences between modern daily-disposable multifocal soft contact lenses to assist eye care practitioners in fitting presbyopic contact lens wearers. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare visual performance of three daily-disposable multifocal contact lenses. METHODS: Presbyopes (n = 72) wore 1-Day Acuvue Moist Multifocal, BioTrue ONEday for Presbyopia, and Dailies AquaComfort Plus Multifocal for 1 week in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover clinical trial. After 1 week, high- and low-contrast visual acuities (HCVA, LCVA) were measured between 6 m and 40 cm and stereopsis at 40 cm. Subjective performance was assessed with 1- to 10-point rating scales for clarity, ghosting, driving vision, vision stability, ease of focusing, overall vision satisfaction, and ocular comfort. Willingness to purchase was reported with categorical responses. Linear mixed models and χ tests were used for analysis, and level of significance was set at 5%. RESULTS: BioTrue provided better HCVA and LCVA at distance than did Acuvue Moist (P ≤ .03). Subjectively, Acuvue Moist was rated lowest for distance clarity, distance ghosting, and driving vision (P ≤ .05). Acuvue Moist provided better HCVA at 70 to 40 cm and LCVA at 1 m to 40 cm than did BioTrue (P ≤ .01) and better LCVA at 1 m to 50 cm than did AquaComfort Plus (P ≤ .02). AquaComfort Plus also provided better HCVA and LCVA at 50 and 40 cm than did BioTrue (P ≤ .03). Acuvue Moist provided better stereopsis than did BioTrue (P = .02). Subjectively, BioTrue was rated lowest for near clarity (P ≤ .007) and lower than Acuvue Moist for intermediate clarity and near ghosting (P ≤ .04). No other differences were found between lenses (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: BioTrue had better distance performance compared with near, whereas Acuvue Moist performed conversely. AquaComfort Plus performed reasonably overall.

Visual performance of myopia control soft contact lenses in non-presbyopic myopes.

PURPOSE: To compare the visual performance of soft contact lenses reported to reduce myopia progression. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial, 30 non-presbyopic myopes wore MiSight™, center-distance Proclear® Multifocal (+2.00 D add), and two prototype lenses for 1 week each. High- and low-contrast visual acuities at 6 m, and 70 and 40 cm; stereopsis at 40 cm; accommodative facility at 33 cm; and horizontal phoria at 3 m and 33 cm were measured after 1 week. Subjective performance was assessed on a numeric rating scale for vision clarity, lack of ghosting, vision stability, haloes, overall vision satisfaction, and ocular comfort. Frequency of eye-strain symptoms and willingness to purchase lenses were also reported with categorical responses. Participants reported wearing times (total and visually acceptable). Linear mixed models and chi-square tests were employed in analysis with level of significance set at 5%. Theoretical optical performance of all lenses was assessed with schematic myopic model eyes (-1.00, -3.00, and -6.00 D) by comparing the slope of the edge spread function (ESF), an indicator for optical performance/resolution and the blur patch size of the line spread function, an indicator for contrast, between the lenses. RESULTS: Proclear Multifocal and MiSight provided the best distance acuities. However, the prototype lenses were rated significantly higher for many subjective variables, and there were no subjective variables where commercial lenses were rated significantly higher than the prototypes. Theoretical optical performance showed steeper slopes of the ESF and greater blur patch sizes of the LSP with commercial lenses, supporting the clinical findings of better visual acuities but reduced subjective performance. Participants wore prototypes longer and reported their vision acceptable for longer each day compared to MiSight. Both prototypes had the highest willingness-to-purchase rate. CONCLUSIONS: The prototypes were better tolerated by myopes compared to the commercial soft contact lenses currently used for slowing myopia progression.

Effects of relative negative spherical aberration in single vision contact lens visual performance.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to compare the visual performance of contact lenses with and without negative spherical aberration (SA) over 5 days of wear. METHODS: At baseline, 32 myopic participants (aged 18-33 years) were fitted in a randomized order with two lenses (test lens with minimal or no SA and 1-Day Acuvue Moist designed with negative SA) for 5 days (minimum 6 hours wear/day). Participants returned for a follow-up visit. This consisted of on-axis SA measurements; high- and low-contrast visual acuities at 6 m; high-contrast acuities at 70 and 40 cm; low-illumination, low-contrast acuity at 6 m; stereopsis at 40 cm; horizontal phorias at 3 m and 33 cm; and ±2.00 D monocular accommodative facility at 33 cm. Participants also rated (1-10 scale) vision quality (clarity and lack of ghosting for distance, intermediate, near, driving vision and vision stability during day- and night-time), overall vision satisfaction, ocular comfort, and willingness to purchase (yes/no response). RESULTS: 1-Day Acuvue Moist induced significantly (p<0.05) more negative SA at distance (Δ=0.078 µm) and near (Δ=0.064 µm) compared to the test lens, for a 6 mm pupil. There were no significant differences (p>0.05) in acuity, binocular vision, and all subjective metrics except vision stability between lenses where the test lens was rated to provide more stable vision (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Contrary to expectations, incorporating negative SA in single vision soft contact lenses did not improve visual performance in non-presbyopic adult myopes.

Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs. two commercial multifocals: Part 2. Visual performance after 1 week of lens wear / Lentes de contacto de profundidad de foco extendido vs. dos lentes multifocales comerciales: Parte 2. Rendimiento visual tras una semana de uso

Purpose: To compare the visual performance of prototype contact lenses designed via deliberate manipulation of higher-order spherical aberrations to extend-depth-of-focus with two commercial multifocals, after 1 week of lens wear. Methods: In a prospective, participant-masked, cross-over, randomized, 1-week dispensing clinical-trial, 43 presbyopes [age: 42-63 years] each wore AIROPTIX Aqua multifocal (AOMF), ACUVUE OASYS for presbyopia (AOP) and extended-depth-of-focus prototypes (EDOF) appropriate to their add requirements. Measurements comprised high-contrast-visual-acuity (HCVA) at 6 m, 70 cm, 50 cm and 40 cm; low-contrast-visual-acuity (LCVA) and contrast-sensitivity (CS) at 6 m and stereopsis at 40 cm. A self-administered questionnaire on a numeric-rating-scale (1-10) assessed subjective visual performance comprising clarity-of-vision and lack-of-ghosting at various distances during day/night-viewing conditions and overall-vision-satisfaction. Results: EDOF was significantly better than AOMF and AOP for HCVA averaged across distances (p ≤ 0.038); significantly worse than AOMF for LCVA (p = 0.021) and significantly worse than AOMF for CS in medium and high add-groups (p = 0.006). None of these differences were clinically significant (≤2 letters). EDOF was significantly better than AOMF and AOP for mean stereoacuity (36 and 13 seconds-of-arc, respectively: p ≤ 0.05). For clarity-of-vision, EDOF was significantly better than AOP at all distances and AOMF at intermediate and near (p ≤ 0.028). For lackof-ghosting averaged across distances, EDOF was significantly better than AOP (p < 0.001) but not AOMF (p = 0.186). EDOF was significantly better than AOMF and AOP for overall-vision satisfaction (p ≤ 0.024). Conclusions: EDOF provides better intermediate and near vision performance than either AOMF or AOP with no difference for distance vision after 1 week of lens wear (AU)

Objetivo: Comparar el rendimiento visual de un prototipo de lentes de contacto diseñadas mediante manipulación deliberada de aberraciones esféricas de alto orden, para ampliar la profundidad de campo con dos lentes multifocales comerciales, tras una semana de uso. Métodos: En un ensayo clínico prospectivo, ciego para los participantes, transversal, aleatorizado, con uso de lentes durante una semana, 43 présbitas [Edad: 42-63 años] utilizaron lentes AIROPTIX Aqua multifocal (AOMF), ACUVUE OASYS para presbicia (AOP) y de profundidad de foco extendido (EDOF) adecuados a sus requisitos de adición. Las mediciones incluyeron agudeza visual de alto contraste (HCVA) a 6 m, 70 cm, 50 cm y 40 cm, agudeza visual de bajo contraste (LCVA), sensibilidad de contraste (CS) a 6 m, y estereopsis a 40 cm. Un cuestionario auto-administrado sobre una escala de evaluación numérica (1-10) valoró el rendimiento visual subjetivo incluyendo la nitidez de visión y la ausencia de imágenes fantasma a diversas distancias en condiciones de visión diurna/nocturna, así como la satisfacción sobre la visión general. Resultados: EDOF fue considerablemente mejor que AOMF y AOP para la media de las distancias HCVA (p ≤ 0,038); considerablemente peor que AOMF para LCVA (p = 0,021) y considerablemente peor que AOMF para CS en los grupos de adición media y elevada (p = 0,006). Ninguna de estas diferencias fueron clínicamente significativas (≤ 2 letras). EDOF fue considerablemente mejor que AOMF y AOP para la estereoagudeza media (36 y 13 segundos de arco, respectivamente: p ≤ 0,05). Para la claridad de visión, EDOF fue considerablemente mejor que AOP en todas las distancias, y AOMF para las distancias intermedia y cercana (p ≤ 0,028). Para la falta de imágenes fantasma promediada a las diferentes distancias, EDOF fue considerablemente mejor que AOP (p < 0,001) pero no así AOMF (p = 0,186). EDOF fue considerablemente mejor que AOMF y AOP en cuanto a satisfacción sobre la visión general (p ≤ 0,024). Conclusiones: EDOF aporta un mejor desempeño de visión intermedia y cercana que AOMF o AOP, sin diferencia de visión lejana tras una semana de uso de lentes de contacto multifocales (AU)

Comparison of Extended Depth-of-Focus Prototype Contact Lenses With the 1-Day ACUVUE MOIST MULTIFOCAL After One Week of Wear.

OBJECTIVES: To compare visual performance of extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) prototypes with a new, center-near, commercial, multifocal contact lens. METHODS: Presbyopic participants (n=57) wore 1-Day ACUVUE MOIST MULTIFOCAL (1DAMM) and an EDOF prototype for one week in a double-masked, prospective, cross-over, randomized clinical trial. Manufacturers' guide was used to select the first pair of lens to be fit based on subjective distance refraction and near addition. After one week, high- and low-contrast visual acuities were measured at distance (6 m), intermediate (70 cm) and near (50 and 40 cm), and stereopsis at 40 cm. Subjective performance was assessed on a 1 to 10 numeric rating scale for vision clarity and lack of ghosting at distance, intermediate and near, vision stability, haloes at night time, overall vision satisfaction, and ocular comfort. Linear mixed models were used for analysis and the level of significance was set at 5%. RESULTS: 1DAMM was not significantly different from EDOF for high- or low-contrast visual acuity at any distance, or for stereopsis. Subjectively, EDOF was significantly better than 1DAMM for vision clarity at intermediate (P=0.033) and near (P<0.001), overall lack of ghosting (P=0.012), vision stability (P=0.004), and overall vision satisfaction (P=0.005). For all other subjective variables, there were no differences between EDOF and 1DAMM (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: EDOF prototype lenses offer improvements over the newly marketed 1DAMM lenses for several subjective variables.

Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs. two commercial multifocals: Part 2. Visual performance after 1 week of lens wear.

PURPOSE: To compare the visual performance of prototype contact lenses designed via deliberate manipulation of higher-order spherical aberrations to extend-depth-of-focus with two commercial multifocals, after 1 week of lens wear. METHODS: In a prospective, participant-masked, cross-over, randomized, 1-week dispensing clinical-trial, 43 presbyopes [age: 42-63 years] each wore AIROPTIX Aqua multifocal (AOMF), ACUVUE OASYS for presbyopia (AOP) and extended-depth-of-focus prototypes (EDOF) appropriate to their add requirements. Measurements comprised high-contrast-visual-acuity (HCVA) at 6m, 70cm, 50cm and 40cm; low-contrast-visual-acuity (LCVA) and contrast-sensitivity (CS) at 6m and stereopsis at 40cm. A self-administered questionnaire on a numeric-rating-scale (1-10) assessed subjective visual performance comprising clarity-of-vision and lack-of-ghosting at various distances during day/night-viewing conditions and overall-vision-satisfaction. RESULTS: EDOF was significantly better than AOMF and AOP for HCVA averaged across distances (p≤0.038); significantly worse than AOMF for LCVA (p=0.021) and significantly worse than AOMF for CS in medium and high add-groups (p=0.006). None of these differences were clinically significant (≤2 letters). EDOF was significantly better than AOMF and AOP for mean stereoacuity (36 and 13 seconds-of-arc, respectively: p≤0.05). For clarity-of-vision, EDOF was significantly better than AOP at all distances and AOMF at intermediate and near (p≤0.028). For lack-of-ghosting averaged across distances, EDOF was significantly better than AOP (p<0.001) but not AOMF (p=0.186). EDOF was significantly better than AOMF and AOP for overall-vision-satisfaction (p≤0.024). CONCLUSIONS: EDOF provides better intermediate and near vision performance than either AOMF or AOP with no difference for distance vision after 1 week of lens wear.

Short-term comparison between extended depth-of-focus prototype contact lenses and a commercially-available center-near multifocal / Comparación a corto plazo entre las lentes prototipo de profundidad de campo extendidas y las lentes multifocales de visión central-próxima, comercialmente disponibles

Purpose: To compare the visual performance of prototype contact lenses which extend depthof-focus (EDOF) by deliberate manipulation of multiple higher-order spherical aberration terms and a commercially-available center-near lens (AIR OPTIX Aqua Multifocal, AOMF). Methods: This was a prospective, cross-over, randomized, single-masked (participant), shortterm clinical trial where 52 participants (age 45-70 years) were stratified as low, medium or high presbyopes and wore EDOF and AOMF on different days. Objective measures comprised high and low contrast visual acuity (HCVA/LCVA, log MAR), and contrast sensitivity (log units) at 6 m; HCVA at 70 cm, 50 cm and 40 cm 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 measures comprised clarity-of-vision and ghosting at distance, intermediate and near, overall vision satisfaction and ocular comfort (1-10 numeric rating scale) and lens purchase (yes/no response). Statistical analysis included repeated measures ANOVA, paired t-tests and McNemar’s test. Results: Significant differences between lens types were independent of strata (p ≥ 0.119). EDOF was significantly better than AOMF for HCVA at 40 cm (0.42 ± 0.18 vs. 0.48 ± 0.22, p = 0.024), stereopsis (98 ± 88 vs. 141 ± 114, p < 0.001), clarity-of-vision at intermediate (8.5 ± 1.6 vs. 7.7 ± 1.9, p = 0.006) and near (7.3 ± 2.5 vs. 6.2 ± 2.5, p = 0.005), lack-of-ghosting (p = 0.012), overall vision satisfaction (7.5 ± 1.7 vs. 6.4 ± 2.2, p < 0.001) and ocular comfort (9.0 ± 1.0 vs. 8.3 ± 1.7, p = 0.002). Significantly more participants chose to only-purchase EDOF (33% vs. 6%, p = 0.003).). There were no significant differences between lens types for any objective measure at 6 m or clarity-of-vision at distance (p ≥ 0.356). Conclusions: EDOF provides better intermediate and near vision performance in presbyopes than AOMF with no difference for distance vision during short-term wear (AU)

Objetivo: Comparar el rendimiento visual de prototipos de lentes de contacto con las de profundidad de campo extendida (EDOF), mediante la manipulación deliberada de múltiples aberraciones esféricas de alto orden y las lentes de visión simultánea centro-cerca comercialmente disponibles (AIR OPTIX Aqua Multifocal, AOMF). Métodos: Ensayo clínico prospectivo, transversal, aleatorizado, con máscara única (participante), y a corto plazo, en el que se estratificó la presbicia de 52 participantes (de edades comprendidas entre 45 y 70 años) como baja, media o alta; dichos participantes utilizaron lentes EDOF y AOMF en días diferentes. Las mediciones objetivas incluyeron la agudeza visual de alto y bajo contraste (HCVA/LCVA, log MAR), y la sensibilidad al contraste (unidades log) a 6 m, HCVA a 70 cm, 50 cm y 40 cm, y estereopsis (segundos de arco) a 40 cm. La HCVA a 70 cm, 50 cm y 40 cm se midió como «agudeza de confort» en lugar de la agudeza de resolución convencional. Las mediciones subjetivas incluyeron la claridad de visión y la visión fantasma (ghosting) a distancia, la satisfacción con la visión general intermedia y lejana, el confort ocular (escala de clasificación numérica de 1a 10) y la adquisición de lentes de contacto (respuesta sí/no). El análisis estadístico incluyó la prueba ANOVA con medidas repetidas, la prueba de t pareada, y la prueba de McNemar. Resultados: La significación de las diferencias entre los tipos de lentes fue independiente de los estratos (p ≥ 0,119). Los resultados de EDOF fueron considerablemente mejores que los de AOMF en cuanto a HCVA a 40 cm (0,42 ± 0,18 frente a 0,48 ± 0,22, p = 0,024), estereopsis (98 ± 88 frente a 141 ± 114, p < 0,001), claridad de visión intermedia (8,5 ± 16 frente a 7,7 ± 1,9, p = 0,006) y próxima (7,3 ± 2,5 frente a 6,2 ± 2,5, p = 0,005), ausencia de visión fantasma (p = 0,012), satisfacción con la visión general (7,5 ± 1,7 frente a 6,4 ± 2,2, p < 0,001) y confort ocular (9,0 ± 1,0 frente a 8,3 ± 1,7, p = 0,002). Un número considerable de participantes optó por adquirir únicamente EDOF (33% frente al 6%, p = 0,003). No se produjeron diferencias significativas entre los dos tipos de lentes en relación a las mediciones objetivas a 6 m, ni a la claridad de visión lejana (p ≥ 0,356). Conclusiones: Las lentes EDOF proporcionaron un mejor rendimiento de la visión intermedia y próxima en pacientes con presbicia que las lentes AOMF, sin que se produjeran diferencias en cuanto a visión lejana con el uso a corto plazo (AU)

Short-term comparison between extended depth-of-focus prototype contact lenses and a commercially-available center-near multifocal.

PURPOSE: To compare the visual performance of prototype contact lenses which extend depth-of-focus (EDOF) by deliberate manipulation of multiple higher-order spherical aberration terms and a commercially-available center-near lens (AIR OPTIX Aqua Multifocal, AOMF). METHODS: This was a prospective, cross-over, randomized, single-masked (participant), short-term clinical trial where 52 participants (age 45-70 years) were stratified as low, medium or high presbyopes and wore EDOF and AOMF on different days. Objective measures comprised high and low contrast visual acuity (HCVA/LCVA, logMAR), and contrast sensitivity (log units) at 6m; HCVA at 70cm, 50cm and 40cm and stereopsis (seconds of arc) at 40cm. HCVA at 70cm, 50cm and 40cm were measured as "comfortable acuity" rather than conventional resolution acuity. Subjective measures comprised clarity-of-vision and ghosting at distance, intermediate and near, overall vision satisfaction and ocular comfort (1-10 numeric rating scale) and lens purchase (yes/no response). Statistical analysis included repeated measures ANOVA, paired t-tests and McNemar's test. RESULTS: Significant differences between lens types were independent of strata (p≥0.119). EDOF was significantly better than AOMF for HCVA at 40cm (0.42±0.18 vs. 0.48±0.22, p=0.024), stereopsis (98±88 vs. 141±114, p<0.001), clarity-of-vision at intermediate (8.5±1.6 vs. 7.7±1.9, p=0.006) and near (7.3±2.5 vs. 6.2±2.5, p=0.005), lack-of-ghosting (p=0.012), overall vision satisfaction (7.5±1.7 vs. 6.4±2.2, p<0.001) and ocular comfort (9.0±1.0 vs. 8.3±1.7, p=0.002). Significantly more participants chose to only-purchase EDOF (33% vs. 6%, p=0.003).). There were no significant differences between lens types for any objective measure at 6m or clarity-of-vision at distance (p≥0.356). CONCLUSIONS: EDOF provides better intermediate and near vision performance in presbyopes than AOMF with no difference for distance vision during short-term wear.

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 soft multifocal contact lenses for presbyopia.

PURPOSE: To compare visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity, stereopsis, and subjective visual performance of Acuvue® Oasys® for Presbyopia (AOP), Air Optix® Aqua Multifocal (AOMF), and Air Optix® Aqua Single Vision (AOSV) lenses in patients with presbyopia. METHODS: A single-blinded crossover trial was conducted. Twenty patients with mild presbyopia (add ≤+1.25 D) and 22 with moderate/severe presbyopia (add ≥+1.50 D) who wore lenses bilaterally for 1 h, with a minimum overnight washout period between the use of each lens. Measurements included high- and low-contrast visual acuity (HCVA and LCVA, respectively) at a distance, contrast sensitivity (CS) at a distance, HCVA at intermediate (70 cm) and near (50 cm & 40 cm) distances, stereopsis, and subjective questionnaires regarding vision clarity, ghosting, overall vision satisfaction, and comfort. The test variables were compared among the lens types using repeated-measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Distance variables (HCVA, LCVA, and CS) were significantly worse with multifocal lens than with AOSV lens (p≤0.008), except for AOMF lens in the mild presbyopia group in which no significant difference was observed (p>0.05). Multifocal lenses had significantly greater HCVA at 40 cm than AOSV lens (p≤0.026). AOMF lens had greater intermediate HCVA than AOP lens (p<0.03). AOP lens demonstrated greater improvements in stereopsis than AOMF and AOSV lens in the moderate/severe presbyopia group (p≤0.03). Few significant differences in subjective variables were observed, with no significant difference in the overall vision satisfaction observed between lens types (p>0.05). The proportions of patients willing to buy AOSV, AOMF, and AOP lenses were 20%, 40%, and 50%, respectively, in the mild presbyopia group and 14%, 32%, and 23%, respectively, in the moderate/severe presbyopia group; however, these differences were not statistically significant (p≥0.159). CONCLUSIONS: Further development of multifocal lenses is required before significant advantages of multifocal lenses over single vision lens are observed in patients with presbyopia.

Short-term visual performance of soft multifocal contact lenses for presbyopia / Desempenho visual de curto prazo de présbitas usando diferentes lentes de contato multifocais hidrofílicas

ABSTRACT Purpose: To compare visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity, stereopsis, and subjective visual performance of Acuvue® Oasys® for Presbyopia (AOP), Air Optix® Aqua Multifocal (AOMF), and Air Optix® Aqua Single Vision (AOSV) lenses in patients with presbyopia. Methods: A single-blinded crossover trial was conducted. Twenty patients with mild presbyopia (add ≤+1.25 D) and 22 with moderate/severe presbyopia (add ≥+1.50 D) who wore lenses bilaterally for 1 h, with a minimum overnight washout period between the use of each lens. Measurements included high- and low-contrast visual acuity (HCVA and LCVA, respectively) at a distance, contrast sensitivity (CS) at a distance, HCVA at intermediate (70 cm) and near (50 cm & 40 cm) distances, stereopsis, and subjective questionnaires regarding vision clarity, ghosting, overall vision satisfaction, and comfort. The test variables were compared among the lens types using repeated-measures ANOVA. Results: Distance variables (HCVA, LCVA, and CS) were significantly worse with multifocal lens than with AOSV lens (p≤0.008), except for AOMF lens in the mild presbyopia group in which no significant difference was observed (p>0.05). Multifocal lenses had significantly greater HCVA at 40 cm than AOSV lens (p≤0.026). AOMF lens had greater intermediate HCVA than AOP lens (p<0.03). AOP lens demonstrated greater improvements in stereopsis than AOMF and AOSV lens in the moderate/severe presbyopia group (p≤0.03). Few significant differences in subjective variables were observed, with no significant difference in the overall vision satisfaction observed between lens types (p>0.05). The proportions of patients willing to buy AOSV, AOMF, and AOP lenses were 20%, 40%, and 50%, respectively, in the mild presbyopia group and 14%, 32%, and 23%, respectively, in the moderate/severe presbyopia group; however, these differences were not statistically significant (p≥0.159). Conclusions: Further development of multifocal lenses is required before significant advantages of multifocal lenses over single vision lens are observed in patients with presbyopia.

RESUMO Objetivo: Comparar a acuidade visual, sensibilidade ao contraste, estereopsia e desempenho visual subjetivo de présbitas usando lentes de contato Acuvue Oasys para presbiopia (AOP), Air Optix Aqua Multifocal (AOMF) e Air Optix Aqua Single Vision (AOSV). Método: Foi realizado estudo mascarado simples, cruzado. Vinte pacientes com presbiopia baixa (adição ≤+1,25 D) e 22 com presbiopia média/alta (adição ≥+1,50 D) usaram cada lente bilateralmente durante 1 hora, com descanso mínimo de uma noite entre as diferentes lentes. As medições incluíram acuidade visual para distância em alto e baixo contraste (HCVA, LCVA), sensibilidade ao contraste para distância (CS), HCVA para distância intermediária (70 cm) e para perto (50 cm e 40 cm), estereopsia e questionários subjetivos sobre nitidez visual, fantasmas, satisfação visão geral e conforto. As variáveis foram comparadas entre os tipos de lentes, utilizando medidas repetidas ANOVA. Resultados: As variáveis para distância (HCVA, LCVA, CS) foram significativamente piores com as multifocais em relação a AOSV (p≤0,008), exceto para AOMF no grupo de baixa adição, que não foi significativamente diferente (p>0,05). As multifocais foram significativamente melhores do que a AOSV para HCVA em 40 cm (p≤0,026). AOMF superou AOP para HCVA intermediária (p<0,03). AOP superou AOMF e AOSV em relação à estereopsia no grupo de presbiopia médio/alto (p≤0,03). Houve poucas diferenças significativas nas variáveis subjetivas, mas a satisfação visual global não foi significativamente diferente entre as lentes (p>0,05). A disposição para comprar lentes AOSV, AOMF e AOP foi: 20%, 40%, 50%, respectivamente, no grupo de presbiopia baixa; 14%, 32%, 23% no grupo de presbiopia média/alto, mas essas diferenças não foram estatisticamente significativas (p≥0,159). Conclusões: Melhorias futuras parecem ser necessárias para produção de uma lente multifocal que forneça aos présbitas uma vantagem significativa sobre a lente de visão única.

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.