Refractive power profiles of commercially available soft multifocal contact lenses for myopia control.

PURPOSE: Lens power profiles can provide valuable insights on the imposed optical defocus and visual experience of contact lens wearers, especially in the context of myopia control. This study measured the refractive power profiles of multifocal soft contact lenses (MFCLs) currently used or that have the potential for use in myopia control using high spatial resolution aberrometry. The instrument's repeatability for determining MFCLs power profiles was also assessed. METHOD: The power profiles of 10 MFCLs of various designs (centre-distance, centre-near and extended depth of focus) were measured using the Lambda-X NIMOEVO, a phase shifting Schlieren-based device. Power profiles were graphically expressed as measured power at each chord position and the maximum add power was calculated. The repeatability of the NIMOEVO was expressed as the within-subject standard deviation at each chord position for a subset of five MFCLs. RESULTS: The measured distance powers differed from nominal powers for more than half of the MFCLs with a definable distance zone. There were variations in the chord position of the distance and near correction zones, rate of power transitions and calculated maximum add between the MFCLs which did not depend on lens design. For half of the MFCLs, the power profile shape was inconsistent between different nominal back vertex powers of the same design. The repeatability of the NIMOEVO was dependent on the lens design, with designs featuring faster rates of power change exhibiting worse repeatability. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in MFCL power profiles were found which were not adequately represented in labelling. This is likely due to the small number of parameters used to define lens power characteristics. Eye health care practitioners should be aware of potential differences in power profiles between different MFCLs, which will impact the retinal defocus introduced during lens wear and the wearer's visual experience.

Visual performance of optical films utilizing Spatio-Temporal Optical Phase technology.

SIGNIFICANCE: Spatio-Temporal Optical Phase technology utilizes film pairs containing optical elements applied to standard single-vision spectacle lenses. This technology provides a dynamic optical cue that may have efficacy in reducing the rate of myopia progression, but the visual performance of this technology is unknown. PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the visual performance of film pairs containing optical elements (tests) and a film pair with no optical elements (control). METHODS: In this randomized, single-masked, bilateral wear study, 42 participants aged 18 to 40 years wore four test designs (E, F-1, G, and F-2) and the control. Subjective data (subjective ratings [1 to 10 scale]: clarity of vision [far-away, intermediate, near] and vision [at night, while walking, overall satisfaction], and willingness to purchase [yes/no response]) were collected after 3 days. Visual acuity (VA)-based measures (monocular high/low-contrast VA [6 m], contrast sensitivity [6 m], and binocular high-contrast VA [6 m and 40 cm]) were collected at dispensing. Visual acuity-based measures were also collected while wearing spectacles with no film. Analyses were performed using linear mixed models and the χ2 test. Significance was set at 5%. RESULTS: The control performed better than any test for all subjective ratings (mean differences, 1.6 to 3.1 units: p<0.001), willingness to purchase (p<0.001), and designs F-1 and F-2 for binocular high-contrast VA at 40 cm (p=0.001 and p=0.01, respectively). Clarity of vision was significantly worse with F-2 compared with F-1 and G (p<0.001 and p=0.02, respectively). There were no differences between tests for any other subjective rating (p>0.1), willingness to purchase (p=0.11), or any VA-based measure (p>0.08). There were no differences between control and spectacles with no film for any VA-based measure (p>0.08). CONCLUSIONS: All four test film pairs reduced visual performance compared with control to a degree comparable with other myopia management devices. There was no difference in visual performance between three of the four test film pairs.

Chromatic dispersion of soft contact lens materials.

PURPOSE: To investigate and evaluate the chromatic dispersion of various hydrogel and silicon hydrogel contact lens materials. METHODS: Eighteen different soft contact lens materials with high and low water content in lens power of -1.00 DS were measured by one operator at temperature of 20 °C ± 0.5° soaked in ISO standard phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and in their respective packaging solutions (PS). An analogue Abbe refractometer (Model Zuzi 320, AUXILAB, S.L., Navarra, Spain) was used for refractive index (RI) measurements at 5 different wavelengths. All contact lenses were presented in a random and masked order to the operator. The Bland-Altman method with 95 % limits of agreement (LoA) and coefficient of repeatability (CoR) was used to characterise the repeatability of refractive index measurements. The Abbe numbers for each material were calculated by entering the measured and interpolated refractive indices into the Abbe number equation. One-way ANOVA analysis was used to test if there were significant differences between the 5 different wavelengths (470 nm-680 nm) within each material. An unpaired t-test was used to determine if there were differences in refractive index or dispersion between packaging solution and PBS results. RESULTS: Nelfilcon A (Dailies Aqua Comfort Plus) soaked in PS showed the best repeatability of all 18 examined soft contact lenses across all wavelengths with an average refractive index of 1.3848 for all 6 contact lenses with a standard deviation of 0.00064. The 95 % limits of agreement were between 1.3835 and 1.3860. The mean coefficient of repeatability for nelfilcon A was 0.00125. For contact lenses soaked in ISO Standard PBS comfilcon A (Biofinity) had the best repeatability. The average refractive index of all 6 contact lenses was 1.4041 with a standard deviation of 0.00031 and a coefficient of repeatability of 0.00060. The 95 % limits of agreement were between 1.4035 and 1.4047. The analysis with One-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons involving Holm-Sidak post-hoc, showed that there are significant differences (p < 0.001, Fratio = 376.2 between wavelengths and Fratio = 1559 between different refractive indices) in the refractive index of most common lens materials across the visible wavelength range. Based on unpaired t-test, there is no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the Abbe numbers of the tested lens materials whether they have been placed in the packaging solution or in standard PBS (p > 0.05, 95 % CI = -4.8070 to 5.8680, t = 0.2054). The Abbe numbers for the calculated contact lenses soaked in PS ranged between 43.7 and 89.9. For contact lenses stored in PBS the range was between 46.3 and 81.6. CONCLUSION: There is a good repeatability between repeated RI measurements taken from the same lens and from the same material. The significant differences between the refractive indices across the 5 different wavelengths showed the presence of chromatic dispersion in the 18 evaluated soft contact lens materials. Furthermore, it could be shown that there is no significant difference in dispersion whether the contact lenses are soaked in standard PBS or in their respective packaging solutions. With no other published data available as a reference, absolute accuracy of the calculated Abbe numbers remains to be confirmed, however, this study did confirm that significant chromatic dispersion exists in soft contact lens materials.

Visual Performance and Binocular/Accommodative Function of S.T.O.P. Contact Lenses Compared With MiSight.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the visual performance and binocular/accommodative function of two novel S.T.O.P. design (F2 and DT) contact lenses against MiSight when worn by myopic, young adults. METHOD: This was a prospective, randomized, cross-over, single-masked study. Each lens was worn daily wear with overnight peroxide disinfection for approximately 7 days. Visual performance was assessed with subjective ratings (0-100): clarity of vision and lack of ghosting (far away, intermediate, and near), vision when driving, overall vision satisfaction, and with monocular high-contrast and low-contrast visual acuity (HCVA/LCVA) at 6 m, binocular HCVA (6 m, 70 cm, 50 cm, and 40 cm), binocular LCVA (6 m and 70 cm). Binocular function was assessed with heterophorias (3 m and 40 cm). Accommodative function was assessed with monocular accommodative facility (AF: 40 cm) and dynamic monocular accommodative response (AR: 6 m, 70 cm, and 40 cm). RESULTS: F2 was rated higher than MiSight for clarity of vision (near and intermediate) and lack-of-ghosting ( P <0.001), while MiSight was rated higher than DT for clarity of vision (near, P <0.001). MiSight was better than F2 and DT for monocular HCVA (6 m) and binocular HCVA (6 m and 40 cm, P ≤0.02), but the maximum difference was ≤2 letters. There were no differences between designs for heterophoria ( P =0.61) nor were there any differences between DT and MiSight for any accommodative measure ( P >0.1). F2 was higher for monocular-AF ( P =0.007) and lower for AR (70 cm and 40 cm; P ≤0.007) compared with MiSight. CONCLUSIONS: The visual performance and binocular/accommodative function of S.T.O.P. designs F2 and DT were comparable with MiSight. F2 outperformed MiSight in some aspects of subjective visual performance and monocular accommodative function.

Temperature affects the biomechanical response of in vitro non-human primate lenses during lens stretching.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of temperature on the accommodative response of non-human primate crystalline lenses during simulated accommodation. METHODS: Eight lenses from 7 cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis, ages: 4.5-7.3 years; post-mortem time: 17.0 ± 16.4 h) were mounted in a lens stretcher. Stretching experiments were performed on each lens at 24 °C (room temperature), then the tissue was warmed to 35 °C (intraocular temperature) and the stretching experiments were repeated. The lens diameter, thickness, anterior and posterior surface radii of curvature, optical power, and the stretching force (load) were measured at each stretch position and the linear optomechanical relationships were quantified: load-lens diameter, load-thickness, power-load, load-anterior radius, and load-posterior radius. The rate of change for each parameter was quantified by performing a linear regression. The slopes of the linear regressions were compared at the two temperatures using a paired sample t-test. RESULTS: The average changes in the lens with stretching at 24 °C and 35 °C were: 3.07 ± 0.17 and 2.58 ± 0.15 for load-lens diameter (g/mm), -2.38 ± 0.20 and -2.00 ± 0.32 for load-thickness (g/mm), -13.35 ± 1.21 and -13.75 ± 1.26 for power-load (D/g), 0.41 ± 0.10 and 0.34 ± 0.05 for load-anterior radius of curvature (g/mm), and 1.35 ± 0.24 and 1.31 ± 0.35 for load-posterior radius of curvature (g/mm), respectively. The changes in load-diameter and load-thickness with lens stretching were significantly different for the two temperatures. CONCLUSIONS: Temperature influences the change in lens shape observed during simulated accommodation in non-human primate lenses. These results suggest that lens stretching experiments and other optomechanical measurement techniques on ex vivo crystalline lenses be conducted at 35 °C and that the temperature of the tissue sample be documented and maintained constant to ensure repeatability.

Peripheral refraction and spherical aberration profiles with single vision, bifocal and multifocal soft contact lenses / Perfiles de refracción periférica y aberración esférica con lentes de contacto blandas de monofocales, bifocales y multifocales

PURPOSE: To compare the peripheral refraction and spherical aberration profiles along three visual field meridians of 16 commercial single vision (SV), bifocal (BF) and multifocal (MF) test contact lenses with a single vision control. METHOD: Forty-four participants [24.2 ± 2.4 years, SE: -0.50 to -4.50D] were randomly fitted, contra-laterally, with 6 SV's [Air Optix Aqua (control), Acuvue Oasys, Biofinity, Clariti, Night & Day and Proclear], 3 BF's [Acuvue Bifocal low and high add, MiSight] and 8 MF's [Proclear D & N in 1.5 and 2.5D adds; AirOptix, PureVision low & high adds]. Peripheral refraction was performed across horizontal, oblique and vertical meridians, with lenses on eye using the BHVI-EyeMapper. The power vectors M, J0, J45 and the spherical aberration coefficient were analysed. The peripheral refraction and aberration profiles of the test lenses were compared with the profiles of the control lens using curvature and slope coefficients. RESULTS: Compared to the control, a relative peripheral hyperopic shift (M), a less negative J0 curvature coefficient along the horizontal meridian, a less positive J0 curvature coefficient along the vertical meridian, a less negative J45 curvature coefficient along the oblique meridian and a more positive spherical aberration curvature coefficient along most meridians was seen with the Acuvue Bifocal and all center-near multifocal lenses. For the center-distance multifocal lenses the direction of the curvature coefficients of the same refraction and aberration components was opposite to that of the center-near lenses. The greatest differences in the slope coefficients when compared to the control were found for the Acuvue Bifocal lenses and all multifocal contact lenses for the refractive component M and the spherical aberration coefficient along the horizontal visual field meridian, with the Acuvue Bifocal and the center-near multifocal lenses having more positive coefficients and the center-distance lenses having more negative coefficients. CONCLUSION: When worn on eye, different commercially available lens types produce differences in the direction and magnitude of the peripheral refraction and spherical aberration profiles along different visual field meridians. This information may be relevant to refractive development and myopia control

OBJETIVO: Comparar los perfiles de refracción periférica y aberración esférica en tres meridianos del campo visual de 16 lentes de contacto (LC) comerciales de prueba monofocales (VS), bifocales (BF) y multifocales (MF), con control de visión simple. MÉTODO: Colocamos aleatoria y contralateralmente a cuarenta participantes [44,2 ± 2,4 años, SE: -0,5 a -4,5 D]: 6 LC monofocales [Air Optix Aqua (control), Acuvue Oasys, Biofinity, Clariti, Night & Day y Proclear], 3 bifocales [Acuvue Bifocal con adición baja y alta, MiSight] y 8 MF [Proclear D & N con adición de 1,5 y 2,5D; AirOptix, PureVision con adición baja y alta]. Realizamos la refracción periférica en los meridianos horizontal, oblicuo y vertical, con lentillas en un ojo utilizando el BHVI-EyeMapper. Se analizaron los vectores de potencia M, J0, J45 y el coeficiente de aberración esférica. Se compararon los perfiles de refracción periférica y aberración esférica de las LC de prueba con los perfiles de las LC de control utilizando los coeficientes de curvatura y pendiente. RESULTADOS: En comparación con el control, observamos un cambio hiperópico periférico relativo (M), un coeficiente de curvatura J0 menos negativo en el meridiano horizontal, un coeficiente de curvatura J0 menos positivo en el meridiano vertical, un coeficiente de curvatura J45 menos negativo en el meridiano oblicuo, y un coeficiente de curvatura de aberración esférica más positivo en la mayoría de meridianos con las lentillas Acuvue Bifocal y todas las lentillas multifocales de diseño centro-cerca. Para las lentillas multifocales centro-lejos la dirección de los coeficientes de curvatura de los mismos componentes de refracción y aberración fue opuesta a la de las lentillas centro-cerca. Las mayores diferencias en cuanto a coeficientes de pendiente, al compararse con el control, se encontraron en las lentillas Acuvue Bifocal y en todas las lentillas multifocales para el componente refractivo M y el coeficiente de aberración esférica en el meridiano del campo visual horizontal, siendo las lentillas Acuvue Bifocal y las multifocales centro-cerca las que mostraron más coeficientes positivos, y las lentillas centro-lejos las que reflejaron más coeficientes negativos. CONCLUSIÓN: Al colocarse en un solo ojo, las diferentes lentillas comerciales producen diferencias en cuanto a dirección y magnitud de los perfiles de refracción periférica y aberración esférica en los diferentes meridianos del campo visual. Esta información puede ser relevante para el desarrollo refractivo y el control de la miopía

Peripheral refraction and spherical aberration profiles with single vision, bifocal and multifocal soft contact lenses.

PURPOSE: To compare the peripheral refraction and spherical aberration profiles along three visual field meridians of 16 commercial single vision (SV), bifocal (BF) and multifocal (MF) test contact lenses with a single vision control. METHOD: Forty-four participants [24.2±2.4 years, SE: -0.50 to -4.50D] were randomly fitted, contra-laterally, with 6 SV's [Air Optix Aqua (control), Acuvue Oasys, Biofinity, Clariti, Night & Day and Proclear], 3 BF's [Acuvue Bifocal low and high add, MiSight] and 8 MF's [Proclear D & N in 1.5 and 2.5D adds; AirOptix, PureVision low & high adds]. Peripheral refraction was performed across horizontal, oblique and vertical meridians, with lenses on eye using the BHVI-EyeMapper. The power vectors M, J0, J45 and the spherical aberration coefficient were analysed. The peripheral refraction and aberration profiles of the test lenses were compared with the profiles of the control lens using curvature and slope coefficients. RESULTS: Compared to the control, a relative peripheral hyperopic shift (M), a less negative J0 curvature coefficient along the horizontal meridian, a less positive J0 curvature coefficient along the vertical meridian, a less negative J45 curvature coefficient along the oblique meridian and a more positive spherical aberration curvature coefficient along most meridians was seen with the Acuvue Bifocal and all center-near multifocal lenses. For the center-distance multifocal lenses the direction of the curvature coefficients of the same refraction and aberration components was opposite to that of the center-near lenses. The greatest differences in the slope coefficients when compared to the control were found for the Acuvue Bifocal lenses and all multifocal contact lenses for the refractive component M and the spherical aberration coefficient along the horizontal visual field meridian, with the Acuvue Bifocal and the center-near multifocal lenses having more positive coefficients and the center-distance lenses having more negative coefficients. CONCLUSION: When worn on eye, different commercially available lens types produce differences in the direction and magnitude of the peripheral refraction and spherical aberration profiles along different visual field meridians. This information may be relevant to refractive development and myopia control.

Peripheral eye length measurement techniques: a review.

Along with the rising myopia epidemic is the increasing interest in any ocular parameter that might inform understanding of myopia progression. The relationship between eye length and myopia has long been established but the recent interest in the central and peripheral retina, eye shape, retinal contour, and refractive error development is attracting more clinical and research interest in peripheral eye length measurements. Therefore, peripheral eye length measurements are an important step in the ongoing research involving the peripheral retina. Since the first measurement of peripheral eye length reported in 1991, many techniques and methods have been developed, which vary in many aspects. These techniques involve custom-built or modified commercially available instruments, with the use of off-axis targets and other considerations such as eye or head turn of the subject. The wide range of methods and instruments used for peripheral eye length measurements make it difficult to compare results and may account for some of the variations in the reported results. Specifications of the different methods are presented along with their advantages and disadvantages. Although researchers acknowledge a good agreement between the modified commercially available optical biometers for peripheral eye length measurement, the Lenstar LS 900 appears to offer better results. Nevertheless, the introduction to the market of an instrument specially designed for peripheral eye length might overcome the issues noted with other methods and could allow for more insights in future research involving the peripheral retina. Moreover, future studies may be able to track peripheral eye length changes and its relationship to the progression of myopia and find out if those changes are responsible for or correlated with important eye conditions.

Refractive index of soft contact lens materials measured in packaging solution and standard phosphate buffered saline and the effect on back vertex power calculation.

PURPOSE: To measure the refractive index (RI) of commonly available soft contact lens (CL) materials, their packaging solutions and compare to the manufacturers' nominal RI. The relationship between RI versus water content, and the effect of inaccurate RI when converting lens power measured in solution to in-air back vertex power were examined. METHODS: The RI of 18 single vision soft CL materials were measured using CLR 12-70 digital refractometer. Three lenses of each material were measured, in their packaging solution and then after soaking in standard phosphate buffered saline (PBS). The RIs of packaging solution were also measured. Accuracy requirements for correct wet to dry power conversion based on thick lens formula were projected. RESULTS: The standard deviation between three samples was less than 0.005. The measured RI ranged from 1.3744 ± 0.001-1.4265 ± 0.0004 for PBS soaked and from 1.3739 ± 0.0003-1.4264 ± 0.0024 for packaging solution soaked materials. Comparing nominal with mean measured PBS and packaging solution RIs, 5 and 3 lens materials, respectively, fell outside ISO tolerance. The packaging solution RI of DailiesAquaComfortPlus had the largest difference of 0.0040, compared to RI of standard PBS. For converting lens power measured in PBS to in-air power, the difference between measured and nominal RI of 0.0104 would result in wrongly calculated in-air power 0.99 D for a -6.00 D lens. CONCLUSION: The CLR 12-70 is reliable and accurate refractometer for the measurement of soft CL materials. Accurate RI measurements are of relevance with increased use of wavefront sensors to measure lens power while they are immersed in solution. Even small errors in solution or material RI can lead to significant errors in converted in-air power. To obtain valid in-air lens power results, measurement conditions must match the material and solution RIs used for the conversion.

Myopia control with novel central and peripheral plus contact lenses and extended depth of focus contact lenses: 2 year results from a randomised clinical trial.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine myopia control efficacy with novel contact lenses (CL) that (1) reduced both central and peripheral defocus, and (2) provided extended depth of focus with better global retinal image quality for points on, and anterior to, the retina and degraded for points posterior to the retina. METHODS: Children (n = 508, 8-13 years) with cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) -0.75 to -3.50D were enrolled in a prospective, double blind trial and randomised to one of five groups: (1) single vision, silicone hydrogel (SH) CL; (2) two groups wearing SH CL that imposed myopic defocus across peripheral and central retina (test CL I and II; +1.00D centrally and +2.50 and +1.50 for CL I and II at 3 mm semi-chord respectively); and (3) two groups wearing extended depth of focus (EDOF) hydrogel CL incorporating higher order aberrations to modulate retinal image quality (test CL III and IV; extended depth of focus of up to +1.75D and +2.50D respectively). Cycloplegic autorefraction and axial length (AL) measurements were conducted at six monthly intervals. Compliance to lens wear was assessed with a diary and collected at each visit. Additionally, subjective responses to various aspects of lens wear were assessed. The trial commenced in February 2014 and was terminated in January 2017 due to site closure. Myopia progression over time between groups was compared using linear mixed models and where needed post hoc analysis with Bonferroni corrections conducted. RESULTS: Myopia progressed with control CL -1.12 ± 0.51D/0.58 ± 0.27 mm for SE/AL at 24 months. In comparison, all test CL had reduced progression with SE/AL ranging from -0.78D to -0.87D/0.41-0.46 mm at 24 months (AL: p < 0.05 for all test CL; SE p < 0.05 for test CL III and IV) and represented a reduction in axial length elongation of about 22% to 32% and reduction in spherical equivalent of 24% to 32%. With test CL, a greater slowing ranging from 26% to 43% was observed in compliant wearers (≥6 days per week; Control CL: -0.64D/0.30 mm and -1.14D/0.58 mm vs test CL: -0.42D to -0.47D/0.12-0.18 mm and -0.70 to -0.81D/0.19-0.25 mm at 12 and 24 months respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Contact lenses that either imposed myopic defocus at the retina or modulated retinal image quality resulted in a slower progression of myopia with greater efficacy seen in compliant wearers. Importantly, there was no difference in the myopia control provided by either of these strategies.

Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs. two commercial multifocals: Part 1. Optical performance evaluation via computed through-focus retinal image quality metrics / Lentes de contacto de profundidad de foco extendido vs. dos lentes multifocales comerciales: Parte 1. Evaluación del rendimiento óptico del enfoque computarizado mediante métricas de calidad de imagen retinianas

Purpose: To compare the computed optical performance of prototype lenses designed using deliberate manipulation of higher-order spherical aberrations to extend depth-of-focus (EDOF) with two commercial multifocals. Methods: Emmetropic, presbyopic, schematic eyes were coupled with prototype EDOF and commercial multifocal lenses (Acuvue Oasys for presbyopia, AOP, Johnson & Johnson & Air Optix Aqua multifocal, AOMF, Alcon). For each test configuration, the through-focus retinal image quality (TFRIQ) values were computed over 21 vergences, ranging from -0.50 to 2.00 D, in 0.125 D steps. Analysis was performed considering eyes with three different inherent aberration profiles: five different pupils and five different lens decentration levels. Results: Except the LOW design, the AOP lenses offered ‘bifocal’ like TFRIQ performance. Lens performance was relatively independent to pupil and aberrations but not centration. Contrastingly, AOMF demonstrated distance centric performance, most dominant in LOW followed by MED and HIGH designs. AOMF lenses were the most sensitive to pupil, aberrations and centration. The prototypes demonstrated a ‘lift-off’ in the TFRIQ performance, particularly at intermediate and near, without trading performance at distance. When compared with AOP and AOMF, EDOF lenses demonstrated reduced sensitivity to pupil, aberrations and centration. Conclusion: With the through focus retinal image quality as the gauge of optical performance, we demonstrated that the prototype EDOF designs were less susceptible to variations in pupil, inherent ocular aberrations and decentration, compared to the commercial designs. To ascertain whether these incremental improvements translate to a clinically palpable outcome requires investigation through human trials (AU)

Objetivo: Comparar el rendimiento óptico computado de los prototipos de lentes de contacto diseñadas mediante manipulación deliberada de aberraciones esféricas de alto orden para conseguir la profundidad de foco extendida (EDOF) con dos lentes multifocales comerciales. Métodos: Se adaptaron lentes de contacto con prototipo EDOF, y lentes multifocales comerciales a ojos esquemáticos présbitas emétropes (Acuvue Oasys para presbicia, AOP, Johnson & Johnson & Air Optix Aqua multifocal, AOMF, Alcon). Para cada configuración de la prueba se obtuvieron los valores de la calidad de imagen de la retina a través del foco (TFRIQ) en 21 vergencias, que oscilaron entre -0,5 y 2D, en pasos de 0,125D. Se llevó a cabo el análisis considerando los ojos con tres perfiles de aberración diferentes: cinco pupilas diferentes y cinco niveles de descentramiento de lentes distintos. Resultados: Exceptuando el diseño LOW, las lentes AOP aportaron un rendimiento TFRIQ de tipo ‘bifocal’. El desempeño de las lentes fue relativamente independiente de la pupila y aberraciones, pero no del descentramiento. Por contra, AOMF demostró un rendimiento céntrico en visión lejana, más dominante en el diseño LOW, seguido de los diseños MED y HIGH. Las lentes AOMF fueron más sensibles a la pupila, aberraciones y centrado. Los prototipos demostraron un efecto de mejora en el rendimiento TFRIQ, particularmente en visión intermedia y próxima, sin pérdida de rendimiento en visión lejana. Al compararlas con las lentes AOP y AOMF, las lentes EDOF demostraron una reducción de la sensibilidad al factor pupila, las aberraciones y el centrado. Conclusión: Con la calidad de imagen de la retina a través del foco, como medida del rendimiento óptico, demostramos que los diseños del prototipo EDOF fueron menos susceptibles a las variaciones de la pupila, las aberraciones oculares inherentes, y al descentramiento, en comparación a los diseños comerciales. Se precisa más investigación futura, mediante ensayos en humanos, para verificar si estas mejoras incrementales se trasladan a resultados clínicamente evaluables (AU)

Mechanical Properties of Contact Lens Materials.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the mechanical properties of commonly available soft contact lens materials and compare results using custom-built MicroTensometer. METHODS: The Young modulus, parameters for stress relaxation, and toughness of 18 types of single vision soft contact lenses were measured using custom-built MicroTensometer. Five lenses of each type were soaked in standard phosphate buffered saline and measured at a temperature of 35°C. Each lens was flattened and sliced into a rectangular strip sample using two parallel blades. RESULTS: The Acuvue Moist 1-Day and SofLens Daily lenses measured lowest moduli, whereas Air Optix Night & Day Aqua and Premio measured the highest. The measured moduli for silicone hydrogel materials were generally higher compared with the hydrogels except for Dailies AquaComfort Plus. The exponential curve fitted over the decay in stress showed a consistent time constant of approximately 10 sec for most lens types measured. However, the amplitude constant varied from 2.84% for SofLens Daily to 22.39% for Acuvue TruEye 1-Day. The toughness results showed that Dailies AquaComfort Plus is strong but not necessarily tough. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanical properties of commonly prescribed soft contact lens materials were measured using a dedicated instrument. Its reliability was demonstrated, and modulus results were compared against published data from manufacturers and other research groups. Agreement was generally good, with only a few exceptions exceeding 15% difference. The more recently released silicone hydrogel lens types have reduced modulus, approaching that of medium or high water content hydrogel materials.

Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs. two commercial multifocals: Part 1. Optical performance evaluation via computed through-focus retinal image quality metrics.

PURPOSE: To compare the computed optical performance of prototype lenses designed using deliberate manipulation of higher-order spherical aberrations to extend depth-of-focus (EDOF) with two commercial multifocals. METHODS: Emmetropic, presbyopic, schematic eyes were coupled with prototype EDOF and commercial multifocal lenses (Acuvue Oasys for presbyopia, AOP, Johnson & Johnson & Air Optix Aqua multifocal, AOMF, Alcon). For each test configuration, the through-focus retinal image quality (TFRIQ) values were computed over 21 vergences, ranging from -0.50 to 2.00D, in 0.125D steps. Analysis was performed considering eyes with three different inherent aberration profiles: five different pupils and five different lens decentration levels. RESULTS: Except the LOW design, the AOP lenses offered 'bifocal' like TFRIQ performance. Lens performance was relatively independent to pupil and aberrations but not centration. Contrastingly, AOMF demonstrated distance centric performance, most dominant in LOW followed by MED and HIGH designs. AOMF lenses were the most sensitive to pupil, aberrations and centration. The prototypes demonstrated a 'lift-off' in the TFRIQ performance, particularly at intermediate and near, without trading performance at distance. When compared with AOP and AOMF, EDOF lenses demonstrated reduced sensitivity to pupil, aberrations and centration. CONCLUSION: With the through focus retinal image quality as the gauge of optical performance, we demonstrated that the prototype EDOF designs were less susceptible to variations in pupil, inherent ocular aberrations and decentration, compared to the commercial designs. To ascertain whether these incremental improvements translate to a clinically palpable outcome requires investigation through human trials.

Peripheral Refraction and Aberration Profiles with Multifocal Lenses.

SIGNIFICANCE: The amount of central or peripheral myopic shift, as induced by different multifocal contact lenses when viewing objects at distance or near, may provide insights on the potential efficacy for slowing eye growth. PURPOSE: The present study aims to compare peripheral refraction and higher-order aberration profiles of four multifocal contact lenses with a single vision control lens. METHODS: Thirty-five myopes (age 21.2 ± 2.1 years) completed the trial, of whom 16 wore Air Optix Aqua and Proclear Multifocal Distance and Near (Group 1, spherical equivalent: -2.90 ± 0.95D), whereas 19 wore Air Optix Aqua, Air Optix Multifocal, and PureVision Multifocal (Group 2, spherical equivalent: -2.95 ± 0.78D). Refraction and aberration profiles with lenses were measured using the BHVI-EyeMapper with (-2.00 to -5.00D in 1.00D steps) and without (+1.00D fogging) accommodation. Data were quantified using M2/4 (2nd and 2nd + 4th order), J0, J45, and higher-order aberration coefficients coma C[3, 1] and spherical aberration C[4, 0]. RESULTS: The center-distance lens exhibited a relative peripheral myopic shift in M2/4 and J0, positive on-axis C[4, 0], negative on-axis C[3, 1] and on-axis M4 was less negative for accommodative demands ≤-3.00D (P < .05). Inversely, the center-near lenses showed a relative peripheral hyperopic shift in M2/4 and J0, negative on-axis C[4, 0], positive on-axis C[3, 1] and on-axis M4 was more negative for demands of -2.00 and -3.00D (P < .05). Independent of lens type, relative peripheral M4 significantly decreased during accommodation. Accounting for C[4, 0], a greater change in relative M profiles and accommodative responses was found for multifocal lenses. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the hypothesis that myopic retinal defocus counters eye growth, center-near multifocal lenses exhibited the preferred on-axis features, i.e., producing a central myopic shift at near compared to the control. The center-distance lens exhibited preferred off-axis features, producing relative peripheral myopia, which increased further during accommodation.

Power Profiles of Commercial Multifocal Soft Contact Lenses.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the optical power profiles of commercially available soft multifocal contact lenses and compare their optical designs. METHODS: The power profiles of 38 types of multifocal contact lenses-three lenses each-were measured in powers +6D, +3D, +1D, -1D, -3D, and -6D using NIMO TR1504 (Lambda-X, Belgium). All lenses were measured in phosphate buffered saline across 8 mm optic zone diameter. Refractive index of each lens material was measured using CLR 12-70 (Index Instruments, UK), which was used for converting measured power in the medium to in-air radial power profiles. RESULTS: Three basic types of power profiles were identified: center-near, center-distance, and concentric-zone ring-type designs. For most of the lens types, the relative plus with respect to prescription power was lower than the corresponding spectacle add. For some lens types, the measured power profiles were shifted by up to 1D across the power range relative to their labeled power. Most of the lenses were designed with noticeable amounts of spherical aberration. The sign and magnitude of spherical aberration can either be power dependent or consistent across the power range. CONCLUSIONS: Power profiles can vary widely between the different lens types; however, certain similarities were also observed between some of the center-near designs. For the more recently released lens types, there seems to be a trend emerging to reduce the relative plus with respect to prescription power, include negative spherical aberration, and keep the power profiles consistent across the power range.

Impact of Spherical Aberration Terms on Multifocal Contact Lens Performance.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of the primary (PSA) and secondary (SSA) spherical aberration terms on visual performance (VP) in presbyopes, as measured using multifocal (MFCL) soft contact lenses on eye. METHODS: Seventeen presbyopes (age: 55.1 ± 6.9 years) wore seven commercial lenses (four center-near (MFCL N), one center-distance (MFCL D), one bifocal, and one single vision control). Unaided and with each lens on eye, the PSA and SSA terms were obtained with an aberrometer, the BHVI-EyeMapper (low illumination, natural and 4 mm pupil diameter). High- and low-contrast distance visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, high-contrast visual acuities at near, and range of clear vision were measured. In addition, subjective VP variables included clarity of vision at distance and near, ghosting, and overall vision satisfaction. Pearson's correlation was used to determine the association between the PSA and SSA terms and the VP variables. RESULTS: PSA (natural pupil) was more negative (P < .05) with the MFCL N (mean PSA = -0.053 ± 0.080 µm) and bifocal (PSA = +0.005 ± 0.067 µm) lenses and more positive with the MFCL D lens (PSA = +0.208 ± 0.160 µm) than the control (+0.067 ± 0.072 µm). SSA (natural pupil) was significantly more positive for the MFCL N lenses (mean SSA = +0.025 ± 0.029 µm) compared to the control (SSA = -0.001 ± 0.017 µm). PSA and SSA terms were significantly (P < .05) correlated with 78% and 56% of VP variables, respectively, but the correlation coefficients were weak, ranging between |0.210| and |0.334|. Although distance variables showed improved VP with more positive PSA or negative SSA, most near variables showed improved VP with more negative PSA. Range of clear focus was greater for more negative PSA terms. CONCLUSIONS: The amount and direction of PSA and SSA terms, as measured with different MFCLs on eye, can affect VP at different distances. Results of this study may provide useful information when designing new or optimize existing MFCLs for improved VP at specific distances.

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, 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, logMAR), and contrast sensitivity (log units) at 6m; HCVA at 70cm, 50cm and 40cm and stereopsis (seconds of arc) at 40cm. HCVA at 70cm, 50cm and 40cm 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 40cm (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 6m 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.

Reliability of power profiles measured on NIMO TR1504 (Lambda-X) and effects of lens decentration for single vision, bifocal and multifocal contact lenses / Fiabilidad de los perfiles de potencia medidos con NIMO TR1504 (Lambda-X), y efectos del descentramiento de las lentes monofocales, bifocales y multifocales

Purpose: To evaluate the repeatability of power profiles measured on NIMO TR1504 (Lambda-X, Belgium) and investigate the effects of lens decentration on the power profiles for single vision (SV), bifocal (BF) and multifocal (MF) contact lenses. Methods: Accuracy of the sphere power was evaluated using single vision BK-7 calibration glass lenses of six minus and six plus powers. Three SV and four BF/MF contact lenses - three lenses each, were measured five times to calculate the coefficients of repeatability (COR) of the instrument. The COR was computed for each chord position, lens design, prescription power and operator. One lens from each type was measured with a deliberate decentration up to ±0.5mm in 0.1mm steps. Results: For all lenses, the COR varied across different regions of the half-chord position. In general, SV lenses showed lower COR compared to the BF/MF group lenses. There were no noticeable trends of COR between prescription powers for SV and BF/MF lenses. The shape of the power profiles was not affected when lenses were deliberately decentered for all SV and PureVision MF lenses. However, for Acuvue BF lenses, the peak to trough amplitude of the power profiles flattened up to 1.00D. Conclusion: The COR across the half-chord of the optic zone diameter was mostly within clinical relevance except for the central 0.5mm half-chord position. COR were dependent on the lens type, whereby BF/MF group produced higher COR than SV lenses. The effects of deliberate decentration on the shape of power profiles were pronounced for lenses where the profiles had sharp transitions of power (AU)

Objetivo: Evaluar la repetibilidad de los perfiles de potencia medidos con NIMO TR1504 (Lambda-X, Bélgica) e investigar los efectos del descentramiento de las lentes sobre los perfiles de potencia de las lentes de contacto monofocales (SV) bifocales (BF) y multifocales (MF). Métodos: Se evaluó la exactitud de la medida de la potencia esférica utilizando lentes de vidrio monofocales de calibración BK-7, con lentes de seis potencias positivas y seis potencias negativas. Se realizaron cinco mediciones en tres muestras de cada una de las tres lentes monofocales y cuatro lentes bifocales/multifocales diferentes, para calcular los coeficientes de repetibilidad (COR) del instrumento. Se calculó el COR para cada posición de la cuerda, diseño de la lente, prescripción de potencia, y operador. Se midió una lente de cada tipo con un descentramiento deliberada de hasta ±0,5mm, en intervalos de 0,1mm. Resultados: Para todas las lentes, el COR reflejó variaciones en las diferentes regiones de la posición de media cuerda. En general, las lentes monofocales reflejaron un COR menor en comparación a las lentes del grupo BF/MF. No se produjeron variaciones notorias del COR entre las prescripciones de potencia de las lentes monofocales y bifocales/multifocales. La forma de los perfiles de potencia no se vio afectada al descentrar deliberadamente todas las lentes monofocales y PureVision MF. Sin embargo, para lentes Acuvue BF, la amplitud entre el punto más alto y el más bajo de los perfiles de potencia reflejó un aplanamiento de hasta 1,00D. Conclusión: El COR a lo largo de la cuerda media del diámetro de la zona óptica se mostró dentro de la relevancia clínica, excepto en la posición central de la cuerda media de 0,5mm. Los COR dependieron del tipo de lente, reflejando el grupo de lentes bifocales/multifocales un COR superior al de las lentes monofocales. Los efectos del descentramiento deliberado en la forma de los perfiles de potencia fueron significativos en aquellas lentes en las que dichos perfiles tenían unas transiciones de potencia más abruptas (AU)

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

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 demonstrated 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 statistically 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 patients with presbyopia.

Short-term visual performance of soft multifocal contact lenses for presbyopia / Desempenho visual de curto prazo de présbitas usando diferentes lentes de contato multifocais hidrofílicas

ABSTRACT 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 demonstrated 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 statistically 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 patients with presbyopia.

RESUMO Objetivo: Comparar a acuidade visual, sensibilidade ao contraste, estereopsia e desempenho visual subjetivo de présbitas usando lentes de contato Acuvue Oasys para presbiopia (AOP), Air Optix Aqua Multifocal (AOMF) e Air Optix Aqua Single Vision (AOSV). Método: Foi realizado estudo mascarado simples, cruzado. Vinte pacientes com presbiopia baixa (adição ≤+1,25 D) e 22 com presbiopia média/alta (adição ≥+1,50 D) usaram cada lente bilateralmente durante 1 hora, com descanso mínimo de uma noite entre as diferentes lentes. As medições incluíram acuidade visual para distância em alto e baixo contraste (HCVA, LCVA), sensibilidade ao contraste para distância (CS), HCVA para distância intermediária (70 cm) e para perto (50 cm e 40 cm), estereopsia e questionários subjetivos sobre nitidez visual, fantasmas, satisfação visão geral e conforto. As variáveis foram comparadas entre os tipos de lentes, utilizando medidas repetidas ANOVA. Resultados: As variáveis para distância (HCVA, LCVA, CS) foram significativamente piores com as multifocais em relação a AOSV (p≤0,008), exceto para AOMF no grupo de baixa adição, que não foi significativamente diferente (p>0,05). As multifocais foram significativamente melhores do que a AOSV para HCVA em 40 cm (p≤0,026). AOMF superou AOP para HCVA intermediária (p<0,03). AOP superou AOMF e AOSV em relação à estereopsia no grupo de presbiopia médio/alto (p≤0,03). Houve poucas diferenças significativas nas variáveis subjetivas, mas a satisfação visual global não foi significativamente diferente entre as lentes (p>0,05). A disposição para comprar lentes AOSV, AOMF e AOP foi: 20%, 40%, 50%, respectivamente, no grupo de presbiopia baixa; 14%, 32%, 23% no grupo de presbiopia média/alto, mas essas diferenças não foram estatisticamente significativas (p≥0,159). Conclusões: Melhorias futuras parecem ser necessárias para produção de uma lente multifocal que forneça aos présbitas uma vantagem significativa sobre a lente de visão única.