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

Abstract

PurposeTo 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsEDOF 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).ConclusionsEDOF provides better intermediate and near vision performance than either AOMF or AOP with no difference for distance vision after 1 week of lens wear.

Presbyopia: Effectiveness of correction strategies

“…Subjective benefits (quality of life) Presbyopia reduces vision related quality-of-life and although this can be improved with corrections, it cannot currently be restored to pre-presbyopic states (McDonnell et al, 2003). Standardised vision-related questionnaires generally include few items to assess near visual activities, concentrate on spectacle dependence only, are targeted to measure another aspect of vision (McAlinden et al, 2010), or have not been appropriately validated (Alio and Mulet, 2005;Alio et al, 2004;Bakaraju et al, 2018;Diec et al, 2017;Kohnen et al, 2017;Walkow et al, 1997;Wang et al, 2005). There is only one validated questionnaire available which specifically assesses near visual ability (Buckhurst et al, 2012a) and this is being updated to make it relevant to modern intermediate and near vision tasks such as smartphone and tablet use.…”

Bifocal and Multifocal Contact Lenses for Presbyopia and Myopia Control

“…Results from Fernandes et al [97] were within ±1 line of their reported VA for all the experimental conditions except for Monovision under near low contrast visual acuity (LCNVA), which performed better than Multifocal lens in their study. Recently, several clinical studies also evaluated visual performance with different contact lenses [103][104][105]107]. Bakaraju et al [103] measured the high contrast visual acuity (HCVA) and the low contrast visual acuity (LCVA) for the Airoptix Aqua, the Acuvue Oasys and extended depth of focus (EDOF) contact lens.…”

“…Recently, several clinical studies also evaluated visual performance with different contact lenses [103][104][105]107]. Bakaraju et al [103] measured the high contrast visual acuity (HCVA) and the low contrast visual acuity (LCVA) for the Airoptix Aqua, the Acuvue Oasys and extended depth of focus (EDOF) contact lens.…”

“…Over the last 10 years, at least 5 different contact lenses specifically designed for myopia control in children have been subject to clinical trials. ose include peripheral gradient contact lenses that emulate the peripheral convergent power induced by orthokeratology [119], soft contact lenses that induce negative spherical aberration with the intended effect of improving accommodative response in myopic children [120], bifocal/dual-focus contact lenses with larger central zone devoted to distance vision [42,[121][122][123], and extended depth of focus contact lenses with alternating areas of positive and negative power modulated by inducing primary and secondary spherical aberration on the front surface of the contact lens ( [119]; see also medium-add power design in Bakaraju et al [103,124] for further information about lens design). Table 6 presents a summary of some relevant aspects to be considered when evaluating the performance of bifocal and multifocal contact lenses for myopia control in children.…”

Optimization of the Light Sword Lens for Presbyopia Correction

“…Commonly used contact lenses have multifocal profiles and extended depth of focus (EDOF) profiles. 10,14,15 However, the profiles of contact lenses are frequently refractive with optical power distributed in central and annular zones, which leads to the undesirable dependence of lens performance on pupil size. For this reason, intraocular lenses are used more frequently when monovision is applied.…”