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

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Daniel Tilia^a ; ^b ; Anna Munro^a ; Jiyoon Chung^a ; Jennifer Sha^a ; Shona Delaney^a ; Danny Kho^a ; Varghese Thomas^a ; Klaus Ehrmann^a ; ^b ; Ravi Chandra Bakaraju^a ; ^b ; ^{r.bakaraju@brienholdenvision.org}
• 关键词：Presbyopia ; Multifocal contact lenses ; Higher order aberrations ; Extended depth of focus contact lenses ; Visual performance
• 刊名：Journal of Optometry
• 出版年：2017
• 出版时间：January-March 2017
• 年：2017
• 卷：10
• 期：1
• 页码：14-25
• 全文大小：1614 K
• 卷排序：10

文摘

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).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.