How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli-Robson test?

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Evaluation and diagnosis

It is important to be able to measure the range of clear focus in clinical practice to advise on presbyopia correction techniques and to optimise the correction power. Both subjective and objective techniques are necessary: subjective techniques (such as patient reported outcome questionnaires and defocus curves) assess the impact of presbyopia on a patient and how the combination of residual objective accommodation and their natural DoF work for them; objective techniques (such as autorefraction, corneal topography and lens imaging) allow the clinician to understand how well a technique is working optically and whether it is the right choice or how adjustments can be made to optimise performance. Techniques to assess visual performance and adverse effects must be carefully conducted to gain a reliable end-point, considering the target size, contrast and illumination. Objective techniques are generally more reliable, can help to explain unexpected subjective results and imaging can be a powerful communication tool with patients. A clear diagnosis, excluding factors such as binocular vision issues or digital eye strain that can also cause similar symptoms, is critical for the patient to understand and adapt to presbyopia. Some corrective options are more permanent, such as implanted inlays / intraocular lenses or laser refractive surgery, so the optics can be trialled with contact lenses in advance (including differences between the eyes) to better communicate with the patient how the optics will work for them so they can make an informed choice.

Contrast Sensitivity and Low Contrast Visual Acuity in Children With Normal Visual Acuity

PURPOSE

To measure and report the distribution of distance and near contrast sensitivity (CS) and low contrast visual acuity (LCVA) at 5% and 2.5% contrast in children aged 5-15 years with normal visual acuity (VA).

DESIGN

Prospective, cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Schools in Southern India.

STUDY POPULATION

One thousand fifty-two children aged 5 to 15 years (mean age 10.61 ± 2.85 years) with a presenting visual acuity of 0.00 logMAR or better in both eyes and a stereo acuity of 40 seconds of arc or better were recruited from nine schools. Repeatability of contrast sensitivity and low contrast visual acuities were tested in 246 children. Pelli-Robson charts were used to measure the distance and near contrast sensitivity at 1 m and 40 cm, respectively. The low contrast visual acuity was recorded at 5% and 2.5% contrast using LEA Symbols at 3 m.

RESULTS

Overall, the mean ± SD, (95% CI) monocular distance and near CS were 1.75 ± 0.11 (1.76-1.75) logCS and 1.72 ± 0.10 (1.73-1.71) logCS, respectively. The mean LCVA at 5% and 2.5% contrasts were 0.20 ± 0.10 (0.21-0.20) logMAR and 0.39 ± 0.11 (0.40-0.39) logMAR, respectively. Distance and near CS gradually improved till the ages of 11 and 13, respectively, and then plateaued. Similarly, LCVA at 5% and 2.5% contrasts gradually improved till age ten before plateauing. The Coefficient of Repeatability (CoR) for CS was ±0.02 logCS for distance, ±0.05 logCS for near, and ±0.01 logMAR for both LCVA contrasts.

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides age-specific normative values for distance and near CS, and LCVA in a cohort of children aged 5-15 years. These results are important to understand the impact of ocular conditions on CS in children and have utility in clinical evaluations.

Visual performance with multifocal corneal gas-permeable contact lenses in young adults: A pilot study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the performance of four experimental multifocal gas permeable contact lens (MFGPCL) designs and their impact on visual function in young adults.

METHODS

Seventeen young adults (age, 23.17 ± 4.48 years) enrolled in the study. Each participant was randomly assigned to wear two of four MFGPCL designs. They wore the first type of the assigned lens binocularly for one week and, after one week of washout period, wore another design on both eyes for another week. The four MFGPCL designs were as follows: design A (distance zone [DZ] 1.5 mm / add 3.0 D), B (DZ 1.5 mm / add 1.5 D), C (DZ 3.0 mm / add 3.0 D), and D (DZ 3.0 mm / add 1.5 D). Baseline visual acuity, contrast sensitivity function, and accommodation data were collected at baseline and repeated after one week of MFGPCL daily wear.

RESULTS

Distance and near visual acuities were not significant affected with the four MFGPCL designs. Contrast sensitivity was significantly lower in design A across all measured spatial frequencies (p < 0.05), with no significant impact from other designs on all frequencies. No significant effect was observed on accommodation measured at 33 cm (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Three of the investigated MFGPCL designs preserve satisfactory visual performance. Lens design A incorporated with higher add and smaller center zone diameter had a stronger impact on the visual performance.

Does blue-violet filtering in contact lenses improve contrast sensitivity?

PURPOSE

The work is aimed at (i) comparing photopic contrast sensitivity (CS) of healthy subjects in an indoor environment with either blue-violet filtering (BVF) or clear contact lenses (CLs) and (ii) investigating a possible dependence of the CS variation on the subjects' intrinsic CS, measured with clear CLs.

METHODS

Optical transmittance of BVF and clear CLs was measured by a spectrophotometer. Photopic CS was measured monocularly on forty-one subjects (nineteen in the age range 20-36 years and twenty-two in the age range 44-66 years) by a digital optotype system at spatial frequencies from 1.5 to 18 cpd, wearing either clear or BVF CLs. The results are indicated as CS_clear and CS_BVF, respectively.

RESULTS

Transmittance curves in the visible range of the two CLs are very similar, despite an absorption band in the BVF CL spectrum with the minimum of transmittance at 428 ± 4 nm equal to about 79%. For both CS_clear and CS_BVF, no significant CS difference was found between younger and older adults. The difference [log(CS_BVF) - log(CS_clear)] showed a decreasing trend and changed sign from positive to negative as a function of log(CS_clear) with correlation Spearman's Rho coefficients ranging from 0.80 to 0.88 (p < 0.01 at all spatial frequencies).

CONCLUSION

In the choice of a BVF CL, practitioners should take into consideration that it can influence photopic CS, improving it for subjects who have a relatively low CS with clear CLs, and worsening it for subjects who have a relatively high CS with clear CLs. BVF can affect positively the CS by reducing intraocular scattering. However, it can also cause a reduction in light intensity, which contributes to the formation of the retinal image. The positive or negative influence of BVF CLs compared to clear ones on CS is attributed to a balance among these effects.

The effects of two longpass filters on visual performance

PURPOSE

This study compared visual performance and optical properties of three filters.

METHOD

Two groups of twenty adults were recruited: wearers of progressive addition lenses (PAL, 46-73 years) and wearers of single vision lenses (SVL, 26-55 years). Three spectacle filters (Hoya, Japan) were compared: clear control, Standard Drive (STD), and Professional Drive (PRO) lenses. Optical transmittance was measured by a Jasco V-650 spectrophotometer. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was measured in photopic (BCVAphotopic) and mesopic (BCVAmesopic) conditions and under glare (BCVAglare). Photopic contrast sensitivity (CS) was also measured.

RESULTS

The three longpass filters show cutoff at 426±2nm (STD/PRO) and 405±2nm (clear lens). BCVAglare improved with Drive filters compared to the clear one (p<0.05) from 0.03 to -0.02 (STD) and to -0.01 (PRO) for PAL and from -0.08 to -0.12 (STD and PRO) for SVL. For PAL, BCVAmesopic improved from 0.15 to 0.12 (STD, p<0.05) and 0.13 (PRO), while no substantial difference was observed for SVL. CS showed some improvements with Drive lenses at some angular frequencies between 6 and 18 cycles/deg, mainly for the PAL group. No BCVAphotopic differences were found. After testing all filters, each for two weeks, 79% (PAL) and 60% (SVL) of participants preferred Drive lenses.

CONCLUSIONS

Drive lenses are found to maintain or improve some visual functions compared to the clear lens. The improvement of mesopic visual acuity, visual acuity under glare, and contrast sensitivity is mainly attributed to the reduction of intraocular light scattering as a consequence of the total light attenuation in the spectral range below the cutoff.

Contrast sensitivity and visual acuity in subjects wearing multifocal contact lenses with high additions designed for myopia progression control

OBJECTIVES

To assess the visual performance of multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs) with high addition powers designed for myopia control.

METHODS

Twenty-four non-presbyopic adults (mean age 24 years, range 18-36 years) were fitted with soft MFCLs with add powers of +2.0 D (Add2) and +4.0 D (Add4) (RELAX, SwissLens) and single vision lenses (SVCL; Add0) in a counterbalanced order. In this double-masked study, half of the participants were randomly fitted with 3 mm-distance central zone MFCLs while the other half received 4.5 mm-distance central zone MFCLs. Visual acuity was measured at distance (3.0 m) and at near (0.4 m). Central and peripheral contrast sensitivity was evaluated at distance using the Gabor patch test. The area under the logarithmic contrast sensitivity function curve (ALCSF) was calculated and compared between the groups (i.e. different additions powers used).

RESULTS

Near and distance visual acuities were not affected by the lenses, neither Add2 nor Add4, when compared to Add0, however, CZ3 significantly reduced distance visual acuity with Add4 when compared to CZ4.5 (-0.08 logMAR vs. for CZ3 and -0.18 logMAR for CZ4.5, p = 0.013). MFCLs impaired central ALCSF only when Add2 was used (15.99 logCS for Add2 and 16.36 logCS for SVCLs, p = 0.021). Peripheral ALCSF was statistically lower for both addition powers of the MFCLs when compared to SVCLs (12.70 for Add2 and Add4, 13.73 for SVCLs, p = 0.009). The above effects were the same for both central zones used.

CONCLUSIONS

MFCLs with CZ3 diameter and high add power (Add4) slightly reduced distance visual acuity when compared to CZ4.5 but no reduction in this parameter was found with medium add power (Add2). Central contrast sensitivity was impaired only by MFCLs with the lower add power (Add2). Both add powers in the MFCLs reduced peripheral contrast sensitivity to a similar extent.

Precision and Normative Values of a New Computerized Chart for Contrast Sensitivity Testing

The purpose was to define a normative database for a grating test for contrast sensitivity, based on a chart monitor with high-definition liquid crystal display, and validate its measurements by assessing their repeatability and determining responsiveness to cataract surgery. Three samples were analyzed: (1) healthy volunteers to assess the repeatability of measurements, (2) healthy subjects to develop the normative database, (3) patients undergoing cataract surgery. All subjects were tested with the grating contrast sensitivity test (Vision Chart, CSO) at 1.5, 3, 6, 12 and 18 cycles per degree. The instrument software progressively reduces the contrast of the gratings according to the Quick Estimate by Sequential Testing (QUEST) procedure. In the subjects of the first sample, three consecutive measurements were taken and repeatability was assessed on the basis of the intra-session test-retest variability and the coefficient of variation. The test offered high repeatability, with test-retest variability ranging between 0.05 and 0.23 Log CS and the coefficient of variation between 0.61 and 4.21%. Normative data did not show a normal distribution. The highest median values were observed at 1.5, 3 and 6 cycles per degree frequencies. At these frequencies a ceiling effect was evident. In cataract patients, postoperative values showed an improvement at all spatial frequencies. In conclusion, the new contrast sensitivity test provides repeatable measurements that can be used for clinical purposes. In patients with healthy eyes and good vision, attention has to be paid to the ceiling effect.