Effect of Contact Lens Design on Objective Visual Acuity-Based Parameters in Pre-Presbyopic Patients in Photopic and Mesopic Lighting Conditions

Presbyopia is often corrected by progressive soft contact lenses (CL), and the resulting visual acuity-based parameters can be affected by the lens design and pupil size under different lighting conditions. In this study, we examined the effect of CL design (spheric vs. aspheric) on objective parameters of visual acuity-based parameters under mesopic vs. photopic lighting conditions. In a prospective, double-blind study, pre-presbyopic and presbyopic patients were fitted with spheric (Dispo Silk; 8.6 base curve, 14.2 diameter) and aspheric (Dispo Aspheric; 8.4 base curve, 14.4 diameter) CLs. The low contrast (10%) and high contrast (100%) visual acuity (VA), amplitude of accommodation (AA) (push-away method, Diopters) and distance contrast sensitivity (CS) (FACT chart, cycles per degree (CPD)) were measured with both types of CLs under mesopic and photopic lighting conditions. The eye with the better visual acuity was tested and analyzed. Thirteen patients (age range: 38–45 years) were included. The mean CS was significantly better with spheric compared to aspheric lenses for low spatial frequencies (3 CPD: 81.69 ± 7.86, 67.62 ± 5.67, respectively; p < 0.05), though there was no significant difference for lower or higher spatial frequencies (1.5, 6, 12, 18 CPD). The low-contrast (10%) and high-contrast (100%) VAs were not different between the two lens designs. However, there were significant differences between near VA, distance low-contrast VA and AA obtained under mesopic (dim) vs. photopic (bright) conditions with the aspheric design correction modality. In conclusion, photopic lighting conditions improved both the visual acuity and measured amplitude of accommodation with both lens designs, though the amplitude of accommodation was significantly higher with aspheric lenses. However, contrast sensitivity demonstrated the superiority of the spheric lens at a 3 CPD spatial frequency. This suggests that the ideal lens differs from patient to patient, depending on the visual demands.