High- and low-contrast visual acuity measurements in spherical and aspheric soft contact lens wearers

Effect of Contact Lens Design on Objective Visual Acuity-Based Parameters in Pre-Presbyopic Patients in Photopic and Mesopic Lighting Conditions

Presbyopia is often corrected by progressive soft contact lenses (CL), and the resulting visual acuity-based parameters can be affected by the lens design and pupil size under different lighting conditions. In this study, we examined the effect of CL design (spheric vs. aspheric) on objective parameters of visual acuity-based parameters under mesopic vs. photopic lighting conditions. In a prospective, double-blind study, pre-presbyopic and presbyopic patients were fitted with spheric (Dispo Silk; 8.6 base curve, 14.2 diameter) and aspheric (Dispo Aspheric; 8.4 base curve, 14.4 diameter) CLs. The low contrast (10%) and high contrast (100%) visual acuity (VA), amplitude of accommodation (AA) (push-away method, Diopters) and distance contrast sensitivity (CS) (FACT chart, cycles per degree (CPD)) were measured with both types of CLs under mesopic and photopic lighting conditions. The eye with the better visual acuity was tested and analyzed. Thirteen patients (age range: 38-45 years) were included. The mean CS was significantly better with spheric compared to aspheric lenses for low spatial frequencies (3 CPD: 81.69 ± 7.86, 67.62 ± 5.67, respectively; p < 0.05), though there was no significant difference for lower or higher spatial frequencies (1.5, 6, 12, 18 CPD). The low-contrast (10%) and high-contrast (100%) VAs were not different between the two lens designs. However, there were significant differences between near VA, distance low-contrast VA and AA obtained under mesopic (dim) vs. photopic (bright) conditions with the aspheric design correction modality. In conclusion, photopic lighting conditions improved both the visual acuity and measured amplitude of accommodation with both lens designs, though the amplitude of accommodation was significantly higher with aspheric lenses. However, contrast sensitivity demonstrated the superiority of the spheric lens at a 3 CPD spatial frequency. This suggests that the ideal lens differs from patient to patient, depending on the visual demands.

Differences in visual quality with orientation of a rotationally asymmetric bifocal intraocular lens design

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual and perceptual performance for different orientations of a rotationally asymmetric bifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (M-Plus) simulated optically using a simultaneous vision simulator.

SETTING

Instituto de Optica, Madrid, Spain.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

METHODS

Perceptual quality and decimal high-contrast visual acuity (HCVA) was measured under cycloplegia for 8 orientations of the asymmetric bifocal IOL phase pattern at far, intermediate, and near distances simulated with a simultaneous vision simulator using face images and tumbling E targets. The preferred orientation at each distance was calculated as the centroid of the data for 8 orientations. The visual Strehl value was calculated using the subjects' ocular aberrations and multifocal pattern at each orientation. Optical predictions were obtained by implementing a differential visual Strehl values-based ideal observer model.

RESULTS

The study comprised 20 subjects (aged 21 to 62 years). Horizontal orientation (near segment at 0 or 180 degrees ± 45 [SD]) was preferred by 14 subjects and by 13 subjects at far and near distances, respectively; 8 subjects showed strong orientation preferences. The mean difference in preferred orientation between far and near was 27 ± 22 degrees. No significant differences in HCVA were observed. Optical predictions correlated strongly and significantly with measurements (far r = 0.71, near r = 0.62; P < .0001). The mean difference between measurement and simulation in the preferred orientation was 28 ± 29 degrees at far and 36 ± 28 degrees at near.

CONCLUSIONS

The perception varied for different orientations of an asymmetric bifocal IOL design tested using a simultaneous vision simulator. Optimum orientation was driven by interactions of the design with the eye's optical aberrations.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Test–retest reliability of contrast visual acuities in a clinical population

Background: Previously, contrast visual acuities (VA) have been evaluated as a potential screening, diagnostic and predictive tool in cases where standard visual acuity remains intact. Issues around contrast acuity sometimes make it difficult for clinicians to make appropriate clinical decisions and thus such tests have to be standardised and reliable.Aim: To investigate test–retest reliability of contrast VA in healthy adults in a clinical setting.Methods: Best compensated contrast VA at 100%, 10%, 5% and 2.5% of 155 patients (mean age 39.7 ± 12.2 years) were measured using the computerised Thomson Test Chart 2000 Expert. For all participants and at each contrast level, two measurements per right eye were determined. Test–retest reliability for the four contrast levels were assessed using reliability coefficients and Bland–Altman plots. Participants were also divided into three age groups of young (18–39 years, n = 72), middle-age (40–49 years, n = 45) and elderly (50–67 years, n = 38) and reliability was assessed within and between age and gender groups.Results: For the whole-sample test and retest, measurements within each contrast level were not statistically different (p ≥ 0.05). Thus, test and retest measurements per participant were averaged and whole-sample mean-contrast VA and standard deviations for 100%, 10%, 5% and 2.5% were -0.146 ± 0.060, 0.050 ± 0.071, 0.135 ± 0.079 and 0.405 ± 0.115 logMAR, respectively. Significant differences were found between all pairs of contrast levels compared (p ≤ 0.0125). Mean-contrast VA within each age group were also significantly different across all contrast levels (p < 0.0001). Mean-contrast VA at each contrast level between the age groups indicated that mean-contrast VA were not significantly different between the young and middle-age groups (p > 0.05) but were statistically different between the young and elderly groups (p < 0.01). Only mean-contrast VA 10% was significantly different between the middle-age and elderly groups (p < 0.001). Also, mean-contrast VA for the four contrast levels within gender were significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) but not between genders (p ≥ 0.05).Conclusion: This study found good reliability of test and retest measurements of contrast VA in an adult clinical population.

Diurnal variations in visual performance for disposable contact lenses

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare the visual performance provided by different daily disposable contact lenses and to analyze its variation over time.

METHODS

Visual performance was evaluated in terms of visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) in 15 myopic subjects (-0.50 to -4.00 diopters) who had been previously fitted with each one of the following seven types of soft contact lenses: DAILIES TOTAL1 (Alcon, Forth Worth, TX), DAILIES AquaComfort Plus (Alcon), 1-DAY ACUVUE TruEye (Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Jacksonville, FL), 1-DAY ACUVUE MOIST (Johnson & Johnson Vision Care), SofLens daily disposable (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY), Proclear 1 Day (CooperVision, Fairport, NY), and Clariti 1-Day (Sauflon, Twickenham, United Kingdom). We measured VA at three contrast levels (10%, 50%, and 100%) and CS for three spatial frequencies (10, 20, and 25 cycles/degree). These measurements were performed at 2-hr intervals during a 12-hr period of continuous wearing. Measurements were also performed with ophthalmic lenses before contact lens fitting.

RESULTS

Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) results revealed significant differences across the lens types and over time for low-contrast VA only. For high- and medium-contrast VA, ophthalmic lens performed better than the contact lenses after 12 hr of use (without statistical differences among the contact lenses). Contrast sensitivity values also showed differences across lenses for the three spatial frequencies under analysis. For each particular lens type, no CS variations were observed with wearing time. Although some of the differences were not statistically significant, we found that, for many of the VA and CS measures, ophthalmic lens and DAILIES TOTAL1 yielded better values than the 1-DAY ACUVUE TruEye and Clariti 1-Day.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing VA at different contrasts and CS measurements allowed us to perform a visual function evaluation. Contact lens characteristics such as material and water content, among others, may be the cause of the differences in visual performance that emerged from this study. Our findings provide useful information for contact lens practitioners.

Higher-order aberrations when wearing sphere and toric soft contact lenses

PURPOSE

To determine the on-eye effect of spherical and toric contact lens design on higher-order aberrations (HOA).

METHODS

Thirty eyes (15 subjects) entered a masked, randomized, cross-over study. Each eye was fitted with the spherical and toric lens of the following brands in random order: Acuvue Advance, Biomedics 55, Frequency 55, and SofLens 66. HOAs were measured using the Zywave II Aberrometer over a 6-mm aperture up to fifth order. A linear model accounting for the fixed effect of lens type and random effects of subject and eye was created. Paired t-tests were completed between lens brands within the spherical and toric lenses and between the spherical and toric lens within each brand. Best-corrected visual acuity (VA) was measured and compared.

RESULTS

No clinically meaningful differences in total HOAs were found between brands or between the spherical and toric lens within a brand. Positive spherical aberration (SA) was reduced by all spherical and toric lenses compared to wearing no lens by 0.07 to 0.23 microm (p < 0.0001). Frequency toric induced the greatest change in SA. The thin-zone design lens (Acuvue Advance for Astigmatism) had a statistically different amount of vertical coma (-0.04 microm) than the three prism-balast toric lenses (0.11 to 0.23 microm; p < 0.0001). SofLens toric had the greatest amount of vertical coma, but better VA than Acuvue Advance for Astigmatism and Frequency toric. With the exception of Acuvue Advance for Astigmatism, toric lenses had greater absolute magnitude of vertical coma than their sphere counterparts (all p < 0.002). No other significant HOA differences were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Toric contact lenses with prism-ballast designs demonstrated more vertical coma, but better VA. Positive SA was reduced by spherical and toric contact lenses. The visual quality effect of lens design and material on induced HOAs warrants further investigation.

Frequency of and Factors Associated With Contact Lens Dissatisfaction and Discontinuation

PURPOSE

To determine the frequency of and factors associated with contact lens dissatisfaction and discontinuation.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of 730 subjects was conducted using a self-administered survey instrument. The survey collected information about present age and sex, history of contact lens wear, types of lenses worn, age at starting wear, current wearing schedule (hours per day, days per week), self-perceived contact lens satisfaction, and contact lens-related problems. A variety of statistical analyses including analysis of variance, logistic regression, and repeated-measures logistic regression were used to model the data.

RESULTS

Current or previous experience with contact lenses was reported by 453 (62%) of the subjects. Of these subjects, 119 (26.3%) reported that contact lenses were not the ideal form of visual correction for them (contact lens dissatisfaction) and another 109 (24.1%) had permanently discontinued contact lens wear. Dissatisfied contact lens wearers had reduced self-reported wearing times compared with satisfied contact lens wearers. Previous lens wearers were more likely than current lens wearers to be men, older (by approximately 9.5 years), have started contact lens wear at a later age (approximately 4-5 years later), and have tried either rigid or both soft and rigid lenses. The primary self-reported reason for both contact lens dissatisfaction and discontinuation was ocular symptoms (dryness and discomfort), followed by preference for another corrective modality.

CONCLUSION

A significant number of contact lens wearers are not satisfied with contact lenses and are at risk for discontinuation.

Inefficacy of Aspheric Soft Contact Lenses for the Correction of Low Levels of Astigmatism

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to compare the visual performance of a toric soft (TS) contact lens (SofLens 66 Toric; Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY), an aspheric soft (AS) contact lens (Frequency Aspheric; CooperVision, Fairport, NY) and a spectacle correction (SC) in subjects with low levels of astigmatism.

METHODS

One eye of 30 subjects with refractive astigmatism of -0.75 DC or -1.00 DC was tested. After pupil dilation, each subject was fitted with all three forms of correction in random order. Subjects were masked from the contact lens type. High-contrast visual acuity (HCVA) and low-contrast visual acuity (LCVA) were recorded for each correction using 2-mm, 4-mm, and 6-mm artificial pupils.

RESULTS

With a 2-mm pupil, HCVA was similar for the TS lens and the SC (p = 0.13); better HCVA was demonstrated with the TS lens than with the AS lens (p = 0.001). With 4-mm and 6-mm pupils, HCVA was poorer with the AS lens than with the SC (p < 0.002) and TS lenses (p < 0.0001). The difference in HCVA between the TS and AS lenses was two letters, three letters, and one line with pupil sizes of 2 mm, 4 mm, and 6 mm, respectively. LCVA was similar for the three refractive conditions with the 2-mm pupil size. With 4-mm and 6-mm pupils, LCVA was similar for the TS lens and SC, but better than the AS lens by approximately one line in each case (all p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

For small pupil sizes, there is little difference in HCVA and LCVA between various refractive corrections. However, for larger pupils, HCVA and LCVA are superior with TS contact lenses and SC versus AS contact lenses by approximately a half-line or more, which is considered to be clinically significant. Superior vision can be achieved for low astigmatic contact lens wearers using TS rather than AS contact lenses.