Effects of eye rotation and contact lens decentration on horizontal peripheral refraction

A Corneal Biomechanical Study Measured with a Scheimpflug Dynamic Analyser in Soft Contact Lens Wearers

The aim of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical changes in the cornea after wearing soft contact lenses (CLs) in healthy myopic patients measured with a Corvis ST® (CST, Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) analyser. This prospective, cross-sectional, single-centre study was performed on twenty-two Caucasian patients aged between 19 and 24 years (20.64 ± 1.21 years) range. Five device-specific biomechanical parameters, the central corneal thickness (CCT), and biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure (bIOP) were measured prior to fitting and one month after CL wear. Differences between the means of the deflection amplitude ratio (DA Ratio) and the standard deviation of the DA Ratio (SD DA Ratio) pre- and post-CL wear were found to be significant (p value = 0.002 in both cases). Significant differences were found between pre- and post-CL wear values in CCT (p value = 0.013). For all other biomechanical measures, no significant differences were observed before and after treatment. A significant association was found between changes in bIOP and classification according to changes in Int. Radius (p value = 0.047) and SSI (p value = 0.026) standard deviations. The corneal biomechanical indices provided by CST demonstrate that the fitting of soft CLs is a safe optical compensation method for the stability of corneal stiffness. No significant differences were found pre- and post-CL wear in the assessment of bIOP.

A focusing method on refraction topography measurement

This paper introduces a novel focusing method Refraction Topography (RT) for wide-angle refraction measurement. The agreement of the test results obtained using RT is evaluated against simulation results and expected refraction. RT develops a refraction algorithm on fundus images at various focusing statuses. Unlike conventional techniques for peripheral refraction measurement, RT requires the subject to stare at a stationary fixation target. The refraction algorithm calculates the focus measure for multiple images at the Point of Interest and formulates them into a focus profile. The maximum focus measure correlates with the optimal focus position. Refraction Characterization Function (RCF) is proposed to translate the focus position into refraction determination, thus forming the refraction topography. The refraction characterization of RT optical system is performed using Isabel schematic eye. Three test eyes of - 15 D, 0 D, and + 15 D are defined, and expected refraction is obtained through simulation on an independent test schematic eye. Both simulation results and experimental results are obtained by combining the test eyes and RT system. Test results are compared with simulation results and expected refraction. The study demonstrates agreement among the test results, simulation results, and expected refraction on three test eyes.

The effect of concentric and aspheric multifocal soft contact lenses on binocular vision in young adult myopes

PURPOSE

Multifocal soft contact lenses (MFCLs) are prescribed to inhibit myopia progression; these include aspheric and concentric designs. The effects of MFCLs on visual quality, accommodation and vergence in young-adult myopes were evaluated.

METHODS

Participants were twenty-six myopes (19-25 years, spherical equivalent -0.50 to -5.75D), with normal binocular vision and no past myopia control. Pupil sizes were 4.4 ± 0.9 mm during distance viewing and 3.7 ± 0.8 mm at near. In random order, participants wore four MFCLs: Proclear single vision distance, MiSight concentric dual focus (+2.00D), distance center aspheric (Biofinity, +2.50D) (CooperVision lenses), and NaturalVue aspheric (Visioneering Technologies). Testing included visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (Pelli-Robson), stereoacuity, accommodation response, negative and positive relative accommodation, horizontal phorias, horizontal fusional vergence and AC/A ratio, and a visual quality questionnaire.

RESULTS

The four lenses differed in distance (p = 0.001) and near visual acuity (p = 0.011), and contrast sensitivity (p = 0.001). Compared with the single vision lens, the Biofinity aspheric had the greatest visual impact: 0.19 ± 0.14 logMAR distance acuity reduction, 0.22 ± 0.15 log contrast sensitivity reduction. Near acuity was affected less than distance acuity; the reduction was greatest with the NaturalVue (0.05 ± 0.07 logMAR reduction). The MFCLs altered the autorefraction measure at distance and near (p = 0.001); the accommodation response was less with aspheric lenses. Negative relative accommodation reduced with the aspheric lenses (p = 0.001): by 0.9 ± 0.5D with Biofinity and 0.5 ± 0.7D with NaturalVue. Exophoric shifts were greater with aspheric lenses (1.8 ± 2.4Δ Biofinity, 1.7 ± 1.7Δ NaturalVue) than with the concentric MiSight (0.5 ± 1.3Δ).

CONCLUSIONS

MFCLs alter visual performance, refraction and vergence; two aspheric lenses had greater effect than a concentric lens.

Comparison of an open view autorefractor with an open view aberrometer in determining peripheral refraction in children

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare central and peripheral refraction using an open view Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 autorefractor and an open view COAS-HD VR aberrometer in young children.

METHODS

Cycloplegic central and peripheral autorefraction was measured in the right eye of 123 children aged 8 to 16 years. Three measurements each were obtained with both Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 autorefractor and COAS-HD VR aberrometer along the horizontal visual field up to 30° (nasal and temporal) in 10° steps. The refraction from the autorefractor was compared with aberrometer refraction for pupil analysis diameters of 2.5-mm and 5.0-mm.

RESULTS

The Shin-Nippon was 0.30 D more hyperopic than COAS-HD VR at 2.5-mm pupil and 0.50 D more hyperopic than COAS-HD VR at 5-mm pupil for central refraction. For both pupil sizes, the 95% limits of agreement were approximately 0.50 D for central refraction, and limits were wider in the nasal visual field compared to the temporal visual field. The mean difference for both J₀ and J₄₅ were within 0.15 D and the 95% limits of agreement within 0.90 D across the horizontal visual field.

CONCLUSION

Defocus components were similar between the Shin-Nippon autorefractor and the COAS-HD VR aberrometer with a 2.5-mm pupil for most visual field angles. However, there was a significant difference in defocus component between the Shin-Nippon autorefractor and the COAS-HD VR aberrometer with a 5.0-mm pupil, wherein the autorefractor measured more hyperopia. The astigmatic components J₀ and J₄₅ were similar between instruments for both central and peripheral refraction.

Retinal defocus in myopes wearing dual-focus zonal contact lenses

Purpose

To evaluate the refractive impact of dual‐focus (DF) myopia control contact lenses (CLs) on accommodating young myopic adults.

Methods

Phase 1: accommodative accuracy was assessed in 40 myopic participants. Phase 2: a subset of four subjects who demonstrated accurate accommodation and six who chronically underaccommodated were fitted with single vision (SV, Proclear 1 day) and centre‐distance DF myopia control CLs (MiSight 1 day) with approximately +2.00 D of additional power in two surrounding annular zones. While binocularly viewing high contrast characters at 4.00, 1.00, 0.50, 0.33, 0.25 and 0.20 m, aberrometry data were captured across the central ±30° of the horizontal retina. Local refractive errors were pooled for each area of the pupil covered by the central distance or first annular defocus zone of the DF CLs.

Results

In the “good” accommodator group fitted with SV CLs, accommodative lags were generally absent except at the closest viewing distance (mean errors: −0.09 ± 0.22 D, −0.12 ± 0.26 D, −0.05 ± 0.37 D and +0.38 ± 0.54 D for −2.00, −3.00, −4.00 and −5.00 D target vergences, respectively) but significantly larger in the “poor” accommodating participants (+0.81 ± 0.21 D, +0.97 ± 0.27 D, +1.18 ± 0.39 D, +1.47 ± 0.55 D). For most viewing distances, hyperopic defocus observed in the region of the pupil covered by the first annular zone was replaced with myopic defocus when fitted with the DF CLs. Myopic defocus created by the first annular region was present across the central 30° of the retina.

Conclusions

Some young adult myopes chronically experience high levels of hyperopic defocus when viewing near targets, which was replaced by myopic defocus in the annular part of the pupil covered by the treatment zones when fitted with a centre‐distance myopia control DF CL.

The Effects of Center-near and Center-distance Multifocal Contact Lenses on Peripheral Defocus and Visual Acuity

SIGNIFICANCE

Multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs) are being used clinically for myopia control. Center-distance designs caused myopic changes in defocus across the retina that varied by lens design, whereas the center-near design caused peripheral hyperopic changes. Multifocal lenses caused reductions in low-contrast vision that varied by lens design, affecting visual performance.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare changes in defocus with four MFCLs, three center-distance and one center-near.

METHODS

Two cohorts of 25 nonpresbyopic myopic adults were enrolled. The first cohort was fitted with Proclear D and Biofinity D MFCL (center-distance, +2.50 D add), and the second cohort was fitted with NaturalVue MFCL (center-distance) and Clariti 1-Day MFCL (center-near, high add), both in random order. Overrefraction was performed to maximize visual acuity. Cycloplegic autorefraction was performed with each lens and without a lens along the line of sight and at nasal and temporal retinal locations out to 40°. Data were analyzed with repeated-measures ANOVAs with post hoc t tests, when indicated.

RESULTS

Changes in defocus at each location differed between MFCL designs (lens by location; both, P < .001). Clariti 1-Day caused peripheral hyperopic retinal changes (40 and 30° nasal, and 20, 30, and 40° temporal; all, P < .05). NaturalVue MFCL caused myopic changes centrally and hyperopic changes at 40° nasal and 30° temporal (all, P < .05). The remaining center-distance designs caused myopic changes at multiple locations (all, P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

After overrefraction, the center-near MFCL design caused hyperopic defocus at multiple peripheral locations, which is not hypothesized to slow myopia progression. NaturalVue MFCL caused myopic changes in defocus centrally but hyperopic changes in the far periphery. Biofinity D and Proclear D caused myopic changes in retinal defocus. Further work is warranted to determine whether defocus profile differences between the center-distance designs influence any slowing of myopia progression.

Power profiles of centre-distance multifocal soft contact lenses

PURPOSE

Centre-distance multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs) for myopia control are thought to slow myopia progression by providing both clear foveal vision and myopic defocus. Characterising the power profile of lenses is important to understanding their possible effects on retinal defocus when worn. The power profiles of three commercially available MFCLs were determined.

METHODS

Three centre-distance MFCL designs were studied: Biofinity Multifocal D +2.50 add (comfilcon A), Proclear Multifocal D +2.50 add (omafilcon A), and NaturalVue Multifocal (etafilcon A). Two lenses each in power from -1.00D to -6.00D in 1D steps were stored in ISO 18369-3:2017 standard phosphate buffered saline for 24 h. Optical power profiles were measured in a wet cell with the SHSOphthalmic profiler accounting for centre thickness and manufacturer-reported material refractive index. Sagittal power maps from the SHSOphthalmic were exported, and custom MATLAB code was used to generate power profiles by averaging along the vertical and horizontal meridians. One-way anova with Tukey's HSD post-hoc t-tests were used to analyse maximum add power by lens design.

RESULTS

Plus power increased out from the lens centre for all three MFCLs. Power profiles of Biofinity D and Proclear D MFCLs show three distinct areas within the optic zone; the distance zone (from lens centre to about 1.6 mm radius), intermediate zone (about 1.6 mm radius to 2.1 mm) and near zone (about 2 mm radius to 4 mm). For NaturalVue MFCLs, plus power starts increasing almost immediately from the lens centre, reaching maximum measured mean plus power at a radius of 2.7 mm. From 2.7 mm to 3.0 mm, there was a decrease in plus power, which was then generally maintained out to the optic zone edge. Across all lens powers, maximum add power was highest with the NaturalVue MFCL (+3.32 ± 0.44D), then Proclear D (+1.84 ± 0.28D) and Biofinity D (+1.47 ± 0.34D) MFCLs (all p < 0.04). Add power peaked at different locations for different lens powers and designs.

CONCLUSIONS

Power profiles of MFCLs vary based on lens design and power. These power profiles are consistent with reported myopic and hyperopic changes in peripheral refraction with MFCLs and provide some explanation for reported differences in peripheral refraction with these MFCLs. Further work is needed to determine whether these power profile differences influence myopia progression.

Nasal-temporal asymmetry in peripheral refraction with an aspheric myopia control contact lens

A combination of human subject data and optical modelling was used to investigate unexpected nasal-temporal asymmetry in peripheral refraction with an aspheric myopia control lens. Peripheral refraction was measured with an auto-refractor and an aberrometer. Peripheral refraction with the lens was highly dependent upon instrument and method (e.g. pupil size and the number of aberration orders). A model that did not account for on-eye conformation did not mirror the clinical results, but a model assuming complete lens conformation to the anterior corneal topography accounted for the positive shift in clinically measured refraction at larger nasal field angles. The findings indicate that peripheral refraction of highly aspheric contact lenses is dependent on lens conformation and the method of measurement. These measurement methods must be reported, and care must be used in interpreting results.