Presbyopic correction use and its impact on quality of vision symptoms / Uso de corrección de la presbicia y su impacto sobre los síntomas de calidad de visión

AIM: To assess real-world adoption of presbyopic correction and its impact on quality of vision. METHOD: The use of visual corrections by 529 sequential patients (aged 36 years to 85 years, 50.4% female) attending 4 optometric practices in diverse areas across London were surveyed by interview and completed the quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire to evaluate visual symptoms. RESULTS: Over half of the population (54.7%) managed without glasses at least some of the time, while between 30 and 40% wore distance, reading and progressive spectacles with those using Progressive Addition Lenses wearing them over 80% of the time, while those wearing reading spectacles only approximately 25% of the time. Age, sex and driving frequency had no effect of QoV (p > 0.05), whereas the distance of the task significantly impacted QoV (p < 0.01). In all QoV metrics, regardless of the far, intermediate or near blur assessment, QoV was rated higher by patients whose main tasks were far focused (n = 231, 43.9%), than those who principally conduct intermediate tasks (n = 165, 31.4%) and worse still for those whose main tasks were near (n = 130, 24.7%), regardless of the form of correction. CONCLUSION: Majority of tasks are in the distance and these had a higher QoV than intermediate tasks with near focused tasks being even worse. It is important to discuss with patients the principal distance of the tasks they generally perform and the forms of presbyopic correction used from the outset

OBJETIVO: Evaluar la adopción en el mundo real de la corrección de la presbicia y su impacto sobre la calidad de visión. MÉTODO: Se supervisó el uso de correcciones de la visión por parte de 529 pacientes secuenciales (edad de 36 a 85 años, 50,4% mujeres) que acudieron a cuatro consultas optométricas en diferentes zonas de Londres, mediante entrevistas y cuestionarios sobre calidad de visión (QoV), para evaluar los síntomas visuales. RESULTADOS: Más de la mitad de la población (54,7%) se manejaba sin gafa, al menos parte del tiempo, mientras que entre el 30 y el 40% utilizaban gafa de distancia, lectura y progresiva, y aquellos que utilizaban lentillas progresivas las utilizaban más del 80% del tiempo, mientras que los que utilizaban gafa de lectura la utilizaban alrededor del 25% del tiempo. La edad, el sexo y la frecuencia de conducción no tuvieron efecto sobre la QoV (p > 0,05), mientras que la distancia de la tarea tuvo un impacto significativo sobre la QoV (p < 0,01). En todas las métricas de QoV, independientemente de la valoración del desenfoque de cerca, media distancia, o de lejos, la QoV fue clasificada de manera superior por los pacientes cuyas tareas principales se centraban en la visión de lejos (n = 231, 43,9%), que aquellos pacientes que realizaban tareas de visión intermedia (n = 165, 31,4%), y aún peor por los pacientes cuyas tareas principales se centraban en la visión de cerca (n = 130, 24,7%), independientemente de la forma de corrección. CONCLUSIÓN: La mayoría de las tareas se realizan a distancia, teniendo éstas una QoV superior que las tareas de visión intermedia, siendo aún peores las tareas realizadas con visión de cerca. Es importante debatir con los pacientes la distancia principal de las tareas que realizan generalmente, y la forma de corrección utilizada desde un principio

Presbyopic correction use and its impact on quality of vision symptoms.

AIM: To assess real-world adoption of presbyopic correction and its impact on quality of vision. METHOD: The use of visual corrections by 529 sequential patients (aged 36 years to 85 years, 50.4% female) attending 4 optometric practices in diverse areas across London were surveyed by interview and completed the quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire to evaluate visual symptoms. RESULTS: Over half of the population (54.7%) managed without glasses at least some of the time, while between 30 and 40% wore distance, reading and progressive spectacles with those using Progressive Addition Lenses wearing them over 80% of the time, while those wearing reading spectacles only approximately 25% of the time. Age, sex and driving frequency had no effect of QoV (p>0.05), whereas the distance of the task significantly impacted QoV (p<0.01). In all QoV metrics, regardless of the far, intermediate or near blur assessment, QoV was rated higher by patients whose main tasks were far focused (n=231, 43.9%), than those who principally conduct intermediate tasks (n=165, 31.4%) and worse still for those whose main tasks were near (n=130, 24.7%), regardless of the form of correction. CONCLUSION: Majority of tasks are in the distance and these had a higher QoV than intermediate tasks with near focused tasks being even worse. It is important to discuss with patients the principal distance of the tasks they generally perform and the forms of presbyopic correction used from the outset.

Investigating the utility of clinical assessments to predict success with presbyopic contact lens correction.

PURPOSE: To determine the utility of a range of clinical and non-clinical indicators to aid the initial selection of the optimum presbyopic contact lens. In addition, to assess whether lens preference was influenced by the visual performance compared to the other designs trialled (intra-subject) or compared to participants who preferred other designs (inter-subject). METHODS: A double-masked randomised crossover trial of Air Optix Aqua multifocal, PureVision 2 for Presbyopia, Acuvue OASYS for Presbyopia, Biofinity multifocal and monovision was conducted on 35 presbyopes (54.3±6.2years). Participant lifestyle, personality, pupil characteristics and aberrometry were assessed prior to lens fitting. After 4 weeks of wear, high and low contrast visual acuity (VA) under photopic and mesopic conditions, reading speed, Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) rating, subjective quality-of-vision scoring, defocus curves, stereopsis, halometry, aberrometry and ocular physiology were quantified. RESULTS: After trialling all the lenses, preference was mixed (n=12 Biofinity, n=10 monovision, n=7 Purevision, n=4 Air Optix Aqua, n=2 Oasys). Lens preference was not dependent on personality (F=1.182, p=0.323) or the hours spent working at near (p=0.535) or intermediate (p=0.759) distances. No intersubject or strong intrasubject relationships emerged between lens preference and reading speed, NAVQ rating, halo size, aberrometry or ocular physiology (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Participant lifestyle and personality, ocular optics, contact lens visual performance and ocular physiology provided poor indicators of the preferred lens type after 4 weeks of wear. This is confounded by the wide range of task visual demands of presbyopes and the limited optical differences between current multifocal contact lens designs.

Randomized Crossover Trial of Silicone Hydrogel Presbyopic Contact Lenses.

PURPOSE: To assess the performance of four commercially available silicone hydrogel multifocal monthly contact lens designs against monovision. METHODS: A double-masked randomized crossover trial of Air Optix Aqua multifocal, PureVision 2 for Presbyopia, Acuvue OASYS for Presbyopia, Biofinity multifocal, and monovision with Biofinity contact lenses was conducted on 35 presbyopes (54.3 ± 6.2 years). After 4 weeks of wear, visual performance was quantified by high- and low-contrast visual acuity under photopic and mesopic conditions, reading speed, defocus curves, stereopsis, halometry, aberrometry, Near Activity Visual Questionnaire rating, and subjective quality of vision scoring. Bulbar, limbal, and palpebral hyperemia and corneal staining were graded to monitor the impact of each contact lens on ocular physiology. RESULTS: High-contrast photopic visual acuity (p = 0.102), reading speed (F = 1.082, p = 0.368), and aberrometry (F = 0.855, p = 0.493) were not significantly different between presbyopic lens options. Defocus curve profiles (p < 0.001), stereopsis (p < 0.001), halometry (F = 4.101, p = 0.004), Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (F = 3.730, p = 0.007), quality of vision (p = 0.002), bulbar hyperemia (p = 0.020), and palpebral hyperemia (p = 0.012) differed significantly between lens types, with the Biofinity multifocal lens design principal (center-distance lens was fitted to the dominant eye and a center-near lens to the nondominant eye) typically outperforming the other lenses. CONCLUSIONS: Although ocular aberration variation between individuals largely masks the differences in optics between current multifocal contact lens designs, certain design strategies can outperform monovision, even in early presbyopes.