Cargando…
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, c...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5219826/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27161603 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2016.04.003 |
_version_ | 1782492532934967296 |
---|---|
author | Tilia, Daniel Munro, Anna Chung, Jiyoon Sha, Jennifer Delaney, Shona Kho, Danny Thomas, Varghese Ehrmann, Klaus Bakaraju, Ravi Chandra |
author_facet | Tilia, Daniel Munro, Anna Chung, Jiyoon Sha, Jennifer Delaney, Shona Kho, Danny Thomas, Varghese Ehrmann, Klaus Bakaraju, Ravi Chandra |
author_sort | Tilia, Daniel |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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, 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5219826 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-52198262017-01-18 Short-term comparison between extended depth-of-focus prototype contact lenses and a commercially-available center-near multifocal Tilia, Daniel Munro, Anna Chung, Jiyoon Sha, Jennifer Delaney, Shona Kho, Danny Thomas, Varghese Ehrmann, Klaus Bakaraju, Ravi Chandra J Optom Original Article 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, 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. Elsevier 2017 2016-05-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5219826/ /pubmed/27161603 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2016.04.003 Text en © 2016 Spanish General Council of Optometry. Published by Elsevier Espa˜na, S.L.U. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Tilia, Daniel Munro, Anna Chung, Jiyoon Sha, Jennifer Delaney, Shona Kho, Danny Thomas, Varghese Ehrmann, Klaus Bakaraju, Ravi Chandra Short-term comparison between extended depth-of-focus prototype contact lenses and a commercially-available center-near multifocal |
title | Short-term comparison between extended depth-of-focus prototype contact lenses and a commercially-available center-near multifocal |
title_full | Short-term comparison between extended depth-of-focus prototype contact lenses and a commercially-available center-near multifocal |
title_fullStr | Short-term comparison between extended depth-of-focus prototype contact lenses and a commercially-available center-near multifocal |
title_full_unstemmed | Short-term comparison between extended depth-of-focus prototype contact lenses and a commercially-available center-near multifocal |
title_short | Short-term comparison between extended depth-of-focus prototype contact lenses and a commercially-available center-near multifocal |
title_sort | short-term comparison between extended depth-of-focus prototype contact lenses and a commercially-available center-near multifocal |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5219826/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27161603 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2016.04.003 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tiliadaniel shorttermcomparisonbetweenextendeddepthoffocusprototypecontactlensesandacommerciallyavailablecenternearmultifocal AT munroanna shorttermcomparisonbetweenextendeddepthoffocusprototypecontactlensesandacommerciallyavailablecenternearmultifocal AT chungjiyoon shorttermcomparisonbetweenextendeddepthoffocusprototypecontactlensesandacommerciallyavailablecenternearmultifocal AT shajennifer shorttermcomparisonbetweenextendeddepthoffocusprototypecontactlensesandacommerciallyavailablecenternearmultifocal AT delaneyshona shorttermcomparisonbetweenextendeddepthoffocusprototypecontactlensesandacommerciallyavailablecenternearmultifocal AT khodanny shorttermcomparisonbetweenextendeddepthoffocusprototypecontactlensesandacommerciallyavailablecenternearmultifocal AT thomasvarghese shorttermcomparisonbetweenextendeddepthoffocusprototypecontactlensesandacommerciallyavailablecenternearmultifocal AT ehrmannklaus shorttermcomparisonbetweenextendeddepthoffocusprototypecontactlensesandacommerciallyavailablecenternearmultifocal AT bakarajuravichandra shorttermcomparisonbetweenextendeddepthoffocusprototypecontactlensesandacommerciallyavailablecenternearmultifocal |