Dataset Information

Visual Acuity and Over-refraction in Myopic Children Fitted with Soft Multifocal Contact Lenses.

ABSTRACT: SIGNIFICANCE:Practitioners fitting contact lenses for myopia control frequently question whether a myopic child can achieve good vision with a high-add multifocal. We demonstrate that visual acuity is not different than spectacles with a commercially available, center-distance soft multifocal contact lens (MFCL) (Biofinity Multifocal "D"; +2.50 D add). PURPOSE:To determine the spherical over-refraction (SOR) necessary to obtain best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) when fitting myopic children with a center-distance soft MFCL. METHODS:Children (n = 294) aged 7 to 11 years with myopia (spherical component) of -0.75 to -5.00 diopters (D) (inclusive) and 1.00 D cylinder or less (corneal plane) were fitted bilaterally with +2.50 D add Biofinity "D" MFCLs. The initial MFCL power was the spherical equivalent of a standardized subjective refraction, rounded to the nearest 0.25 D step (corneal plane). An SOR was performed monocularly (each eye) to achieve BCVA. Binocular, high-contrast logMAR acuity was measured with manifest spectacle correction and MFCLs with over-refraction. Photopic pupil size was measured with a pupilometer. RESULTS:The mean (±SD) age was 10.3 ± 1.2 years, and the mean (±SD) SOR needed to achieve BCVA was OD: -0.61 ± 0.24 D/OS: -0.58 ± 0.27 D. There was no difference in binocular high-contrast visual acuity (logMAR) between spectacles (-0.01 ± 0.06) and best-corrected MFCLs (-0.01 ± 0.07) (P = .59). The mean (±SD) photopic pupil size (5.4 ± 0.7 mm) was not correlated with best MFCL correction or the over-refraction magnitude (both P ? .09). CONCLUSIONS:Children achieved BCVA with +2.50 D add MFCLs that was not different than with spectacles. Children typically required an over-refraction of -0.50 to -0.75 D to achieve BCVA. With a careful over-refraction, these +2.50 D add MFCLs provide good distance acuity, making them viable candidates for myopia control.

SUBMITTER: Schulle KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5880703 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Visual Acuity and Over-refraction in Myopic Children Fitted with Soft Multifocal Contact Lenses.

Schulle Krystal L KL Berntsen David A DA Sinnott Loraine T LT Bickle Katherine M KM Gostovic Anita T AT Pierce Gilbert E GE Jones-Jordan Lisa A LA Mutti Donald O DO Walline Jeffrey J JJ

Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry 20180401 4

<h4>Significance</h4>Practitioners fitting contact lenses for myopia control frequently question whether a myopic child can achieve good vision with a high-add multifocal. We demonstrate that visual acuity is not different than spectacles with a commercially available, center-distance soft multifocal contact lens (MFCL) (Biofinity Multifocal "D"; +2.50 D add).<h4>Purpose</h4>To determine the spherical over-refraction (SOR) necessary to obtain best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) when fitting myop ...[more]

PMID: 29561497

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:It is unclear whether multifocal soft contact lenses (MFSCLs) affect visual quality when they are used for myopia control in juvenile myopes. The aim of this study was, therefore, to investigate the effect of MFSCLs on visual quality among juvenile myopia subjects. Methods:In a prospective, intervention study, thirty-three juvenile myopes were enrolled. Visual perception was assessed by a quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire with spectacles at baseline and after 1 month of MFSCL wear. At the one-month visit, the high (96%) contrast distance visual acuity (distance HCVA) and low (10%) contrast distance visual acuity (distance LCVA) were measured with single vision spectacle lenses, single vision soft contact lenses (SVSCLs) and MFSCLs in a random order. Wavefront aberrations were measured with SVSCLs, with MFSCLs, and without any correction. Results:Neither distance HCVA (p?>?0.05) nor distance LCVA (p?>?0.05) revealed any significant difference between MFSCLs, SVSCLs and single vision spectacle lenses. The overall score (the sum of ten symptoms) of the QoV questionnaire did not show a statistically significant difference between spectacles at baseline and after 1 month of MFSCL wear (p?=?0.357). The results showed that the frequency (p?<?0.001), severity (p?=?0.001) and bothersome degree (p?=?0.016) of halos were significantly worse when wearing MFSCLs than when wearing single vision spectacle lenses. In contrast, the bothersome degree caused by focusing difficulty (p?=?0.046) and the frequency of difficulty in judging distance or depth perception (p?=?0.046) were better when wearing MFSCLs than when wearing single vision spectacle lenses. Compared with the naked eye, MFSCLs increased the total aberrations (p?<?0.001), higher-order aberrations (p?<?0.001), trefoil (p?=?0.023), coma aberrations (p?<?0.001) and spherical aberrations (SA) (p?<?0.001). Compared with the SVSCLs, MFSCLs increased the total aberrations (p?<?0.001), higher-order aberrations (p?<?0.001), coma aberrations (p?<?0.001) and SA (p?<?0.001). The direction of SA was more positive (p?<?0.001) with the MFSCLs and more negative (p?=?0.001) with the SVSCLs compared with the naked eye. Conclusions:Wearing MFSCLs can provide satisfactory corrected visual acuity (both distance HCVA and distance LCVA). Although the lenses increased the aberrations, such as total aberrations and higher-order aberrations, there were few adverse effects on the distance HCVA, distance LCVA and visual perception after 1 month of MFSCL use. Trial registration:Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR-OOC-17012103. Registered 23 July 2017, http://www.chictr.org.cn/usercenter.aspx.

Project description:PurposeTo 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.MethodForty-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.ResultsCompared 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.ConclusionWhen 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.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the visual performance of soft contact lenses reported to reduce myopia progression.MethodsIn a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial, 30 non-presbyopic myopes wore MiSight™, center-distance Proclear® Multifocal (+2.00 D add), and two prototype lenses for 1 week each. High- and low-contrast visual acuities at 6 m, and 70 and 40 cm; stereopsis at 40 cm; accommodative facility at 33 cm; and horizontal phoria at 3 m and 33 cm were measured after 1 week. Subjective performance was assessed on a numeric rating scale for vision clarity, lack of ghosting, vision stability, haloes, overall vision satisfaction, and ocular comfort. Frequency of eye-strain symptoms and willingness to purchase lenses were also reported with categorical responses. Participants reported wearing times (total and visually acceptable). Linear mixed models and chi-square tests were employed in analysis with level of significance set at 5%. Theoretical optical performance of all lenses was assessed with schematic myopic model eyes (-1.00, -3.00, and -6.00 D) by comparing the slope of the edge spread function (ESF), an indicator for optical performance/resolution and the blur patch size of the line spread function, an indicator for contrast, between the lenses.ResultsProclear Multifocal and MiSight provided the best distance acuities. However, the prototype lenses were rated significantly higher for many subjective variables, and there were no subjective variables where commercial lenses were rated significantly higher than the prototypes. Theoretical optical performance showed steeper slopes of the ESF and greater blur patch sizes of the LSP with commercial lenses, supporting the clinical findings of better visual acuities but reduced subjective performance. Participants wore prototypes longer and reported their vision acceptable for longer each day compared to MiSight. Both prototypes had the highest willingness-to-purchase rate.ConclusionsThe prototypes were better tolerated by myopes compared to the commercial soft contact lenses currently used for slowing myopia progression.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the short- and long-term effects of myopia control spectacle lenses with highly aspherical lenslets (HAL) and slightly aspherical lenslets (SAL) on visual function and visual quality using data obtained from a randomized controlled clinical trial.MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized, controlled, and double-blinded study; 170 myopic children aged 8-13 years were randomly assigned to the HAL, SAL, or single-vision spectacle lenses (SVL) groups. Distance and near visual acuity (VA) at high (100%) and low (10%) contrast in photopic and scotopic conditions, near phoria, stereoacuity, and accommodative lag, microfluctuations (AMFs), amplitude (AA) were measured after wearing lenses for 10 min, 6 months, and 12 months.ResultsIn total, 161 subjects completed all follow-up in 12 months and were included in the analysis. After 10 min of wearing, the HAL and SAL groups had lower scotopic and low-contrast VA than the SVL group (decreased 0.03-0.08 logMAR and 0.01-0.04 logMAR in different VAs in the HAL and SAL groups, respectively, all P < 0.05). The reduction in VA was recovered at 12 months as the HAL and SAL groups exhibited significant VA improvements, and the VA was not different among the three groups (all P > 0.05). The HAL and SAL groups had significantly larger AMFs than the SVL group (HAL vs. SAL vs. SVL: 0.21 ± 0.08 D vs. 0.16 ± 0.05 D vs. 0.15 ± 0.06 D at baseline, 0.19 ± 0.07 D vs. 0.17 ± 0.05 D vs. 0.13 ± 0.07 D at 12 months, all P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in accommodative lag, AA, or phoria between the groups (all P > 0.05). The HAL and SAL groups had reduced stereoacuity compared to the SVL group at baseline (70' vs. 60' vs. 50', P = 0.005), but no difference was observed at 12 months (70' vs. 70' vs. 70', P = 0.11).ConclusionsHAL and SAL have no significant influence on accommodation and phoria except had larger AMF than SVL. Scotopic VA and low-contrast VA are reduced with short-term HAL and SAL use but recovered to be at same level with the SVL after 1 year of use. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR1800017683. Registered on 9 August 2018. http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=29789.

Dataset Information

Visual Acuity and Over-refraction in Myopic Children Fitted with Soft Multifocal Contact Lenses.

Publications

Visual Acuity and Over-refraction in Myopic Children Fitted with Soft Multifocal Contact Lenses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets