Early Symptomatic Presbyopes—What Correction Modality Works Best?

Woods, Jill; Woods, Craig A.; Fonn, Desmond

doi:10.1097/icl.0b013e3181b5003b

Cited by 48 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The objective results with AOMF concur with other studies assessing center-near lenses for HCVA,12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 LCVA,18, 21 and CS12, 16, 17, 19 at 6 m and stereopsis at 40 cm 17, 18, 20. However, many of these studies also reported better results with AOMF for HCVA at 40 cm 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…However, simultaneously focused and defocused retinal images can lead to decreased quality of vision,1, 12, 13 decreased contrast sensitivity13, 14 and ghosting 13, 15. Despite these limitations, good visual outcomes have been reported with some center-near designs12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 with some studies reporting similar12, 19 or better12, 16 outcomes compared to a zonal-refractive multifocal. However, these limitations also indicate improvements in multifocal designs are needed to service the current and future presbyopic CL market.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Tilia

Munro

Chung

et al. 2017

Journal of Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo 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).MethodsThis 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.ResultsSignificant 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).ConclusionsEDOF provides better intermediate and near vision performance in presbyopes than AOMF with no difference for distance vision during short-term wear.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Tilia

Munro

Chung

et al. 2017

Journal of Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly, considerably lower rates of stereopsis were achieved with multifocal designs in this study than those reported for the same designs in previous studies (21-54 seconds of arc) (15,19) , even when considering only the mild presbyopia group in this study. We believe that this discrepancy may attributable to the inclusion of a wider age range of patients with presbyopia in this study who fell into the mild presbyopia group and the different evaluation methods used.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 54%

Short-term visual performance of soft multifocal contact lenses for presbyopia

Sha¹,

Bakaraju²,

Tilia³

et al. 2016

Arquivos Brasileiros De Oftalmologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 de monstrated 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 sta tistically 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 pa tients with presbyopia.

show abstract

“…Ferrer-Blasco et al (13) found 22.40 ± 8.23, 56.40 ± 18.00, and 54.80 ± 20.23 sec of arc in 25 patients fitted with Proclear multifocal lenses from Cooper Vision using the Howard-Dolman, Titmus, and Random Dot sterereotests, respectively. Previous studies have analyzed NSA in patients fitted with different models of multifocal contact lenses with the same (12,22) or different stereotests (5,21,(23)(24)(25) . Considering all these previous studies, there has been some variability among results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%