Accuracy, inter-observer and intra-observer reliability in topography assessment of multifocal contact lens centration

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.

Centration assessment of an extended depth of focus contact lens for myopic progression control

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy and the inter and intra-observer reliability of the centration assessment of extended depth of focus (EDOF) contact lenses (CL) using corneal topography.

METHOD

EDOF soft CLs (Mylo, Mark'Ennovy) were fitted on thirty-three myopic students (25 females), aged 19-28 years (22.7 ± 2.0 years). For any EDOF CL, a topography over the CL and a slit lamp (SL) digital picture were taken in random order. For the topographic images, the position of the EDOF CL centre, with respect to the pupil centre, was detected by two different practitioners (one newly graduated and one with more than 20 years of clinical experience respectively) and repeated after 15 days. This measurement was compared to the one taken through the SL, considered as the gold standard, and assessed using the instrument software.

RESULTS

EDOF CLs resulted decentred inferiorly and temporally ranging, in the case of slit lamp assessment, between -0.27 ± 0.19 and 0.22 ± 0.23 mm horizontally and between -0.12 ± 0.31 and -0.17 ± 0.34 mm vertically, for the right and left eye respectively. The accuracy of the topographic assessment in determining EDOF CL centration was found to be very good compared to the SL assessment. No differences were found for the left eye, whereas in the right eye, a less temporally decentred position of the CL was detected by the topographical method (p < 0.05). However, this difference appeared clinically negligible (0.14 ± 0.22 mm). Inter-observer reliability (the differences between the two practitioners in assessing the EDOF centre) resulted significant only for the vertical coordinates of the centre position (p < 0.05). Concerning intra-observer reliability, better coefficient of precision and reliability between measurements within the same session were achieved by the more experienced practitioner, as well as a better level of the intraclass correlation coefficient in test-retest.

CONCLUSION

The centration of the EDOF CL investigated in this study can be accurately detected by a corneal topography performed over CLs. Inter-observer reliability resulted good whereas the intra-observer reliability resulted partially affected by the level of clinical experience of the practitioner.

Addressing common myths and misconceptions in soft contact lens practice

Advances in contact lens technology over the past 50 years since the commercialisation of the first soft lenses in 1971 have been incredible, with significant changes in contact lens materials, frequency of replacement, care systems and lens designs occurring. However, despite the widespread availability of contact lenses, penetration rates for those who need vision correction remain in the low single digits and many practitioners seem to hold on to concepts around the potential value of contact lenses that appear based in the dim and distant past and are certainly no longer valid today. This review addresses 10 common 'myths and misconceptions' around soft contact lenses using an evidence-based approach that can hopefully dispel some of these incorrect assumptions.