Artificial pupil versus contralateral balanced contact lens fit for presbyopia correction

García‐Lázaro, Santiago; Ferrer-Blasco, Teresa; Radhakrishnan, Hema; Albarrán-Diego, César; Montés‐Micó, Robert

doi:10.5935/0004-2749.20140019

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Main characteristics of those articles were summarized in Table 1. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] The application of the evaluation tool for Section A revealed that all evaluated studies addressed a clearly focused research question and were randomized. Therefore, the answer to items one and two was always "YES".…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only few authors have limited the age or the additions examined to low addition 16,20 or medium/high additions. [22][23][24] In the same line, another limitation found in the literature revised was the inclusion of different refractive errors analyzed together within the same group, with only few studies from García-Lázaro et al 19,22 analyzing specifically the outcomes in emmetropes. The rest of studies evaluated the results obtained from myopes and hyperopes in a same group, with no distinction according to refraction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12,20,[22][23][24] The CL-wearing period also differed between publications, with some studies evaluating the shortterm visual performance during few minutes or one visit evaluation 12,15,20 and others evaluating the visual performance in a longer period: 1 week, 10,11,13 15 days, 9,17,18,21 or 1 month. 14,16,19,[22][23][24] Neuroadaptation to multifocality has demonstrated playing an important role in the self-perception of visual quality by subjects. 26 It has even demonstrated that short-term performance cannot predict long-term performance with MCLs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Comparisons between MCLs and pinhole CLs were performed by García-Lazaro et al 19,22 These articles obtained a lower score in the quality appraisal analysis, but this was mainly due to the physical characteristics of the pinhole CLs, which made impossible a full blinding (item 4). Since the pinhole CL was a prototype in the studies conducted by these authors, results cannot be considered as applicable to our local population, decreasing the quality score (item 10).…”

Section: Q2: Comparison With Pinhole Contact Lensesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Efficacy of Presbyopia-Correcting Contact Lenses: A Systematic Review

Molina‐Martín

Piñero

Martínez-Plaza

et al. 2023

Eye &Amp; Contact Lens: Science &Amp; Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To analyze critically the clinical trials on presbyopia correction with contact lenses (CLs) to investigate the quality of the research performed. Methods: A search was performed in PubMed database on clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of the presbyopia correction with different CLs, including multifocal or simultaneous vision contact lenses (MCLs). After a comprehensive analysis of the relevant publications found, quality assessment of such publications was performed by means of Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist tool according to the five types of evaluations: MCL versus spectacles, MCL versus pinhole CLs, MCL versus monovision, comparison between MCL designs, and MCL versus extended depth of focus CLs. Results: A total of 16 clinical trials were selected for evaluation. All evaluated studies addressed a clearly focused research question and were randomized, with a crossover design in most of the cases. Blinding was not possible in all cases due to the physical appearance of some of the CLs evaluated (pinhole or hybrid designs). Most of studies analyzed reported outcomes with complete data, providing the statistical tests used and the P-values, but some of the authors did not provide the statistical power associated to the sample size evaluated. The small sample size in some trials as well as the scarce information about the effect of addition on visual performance was the main limitations found in the peer-reviewed literature revised. Conclusions: There is a high-quality scientific evidence supporting the use of presbyopia-correcting CLs, with several randomized controlled clinical trials conducted to this date.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Q2: Comparison With Pinhole Contact Lensesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Efficacy of Presbyopia-Correcting Contact Lenses: A Systematic Review

Molina‐Martín

Piñero

Martínez-Plaza

et al. 2023

Eye &Amp; Contact Lens: Science &Amp; Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Green line: 20 subjects (age: 42-48 yrs) Acuvue Oasys presbyopia (Madrid-Costa et al [102]). Black line: 38 subjects (age: 48-62 yrs) Proclear Multifocal (Garcia-Lázaro et al [116]). Dashed grey line: expected performance for fully presbyopic eyes (unpublished data from CEORLab-UMinho).…”

Section: Visual Acuity and Dysphotopsiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Bifocal and Multifocal Contact Lenses for Presbyopia and Myopia Control

Remón

Pérez-Merino

Macedo-de-Araújo

et al. 2020

Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bifocal and multifocal optical devices are intended to get images into focus from objects placed at different distances from the observer. Spectacles, contact lenses, and intraocular lenses can meet the requirements to provide such a solution. Contact lenses provide unique characteristics as a platform for implementing bifocality and multifocality. Compared to spectacles, they are closer to the eye, providing a wider field of view, less distortion, and their use is more consistent as they are not so easily removed along the day. In addition, contact lenses are also minimally invasive, can be easily exchangeable, and, therefore, suitable for conditions in which surgical procedures are not indicated. Contact lenses can remain centered with the eye despite eye movements, providing the possibility for simultaneous imaging from different object distances. The main current indications for bifocal and multifocal contact lenses include presbyopia correction in adult population and myopia control in children. Considering the large numbers of potential candidates for optical correction of presbyopia and the demographic trends in myopia, the potential impact of contact lenses for presbyopia and myopia applications is undoubtedly tremendous. However, the ocular characteristics and expectations vary significantly between young and older candidates and impose different challenges in fitting bifocal and multifocal contact lenses for the correction of presbyopia and myopia control. This review presents the recent developments in material platforms, optical designs, simulated visual performance, and the clinical performance assessment of bifocal and multifocal contact lenses for presbyopia correction and/or myopia progression control.

show abstract