Comparison of short‐term light disturbance, optical and visual performance outcomes between a myopia control contact lens and a single‐vision contact lens

Enhancement of the Inner Foveal Response of Young Adults with Extended-Depth-of-Focus Contact Lens for Myopia Management

BACKGROUND

Myopia management contact lenses have been shown to successfully decrease the rate of eye elongation in children by changing the peripheral refractive profile of the retina. Despite the efforts of the scientific community, the retinal response mechanism to defocus is still unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the local electrophysiological response of the retina with a myopia control contact lens (CL) compared to a single-vision CL of the same material.

METHODS

The retinal electrical activity and peripheral refraction of 16 eyes (16 subjects, 27.5 ± 5.7 years, 13 females and 3 males) with myopia between -0.75 D and -6.00 D (astigmatism < 1.00 D) were assessed with two CLs (Filcon 5B): a single-vision (SV) CL and an extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) CL used for myopia management. The peripheral refraction was assessed with an open-field WAM-5500 auto-refractometer/keratometer in four meridians separated by 45° at 2.50 m distance. The global-flash multifocal electroretinogram (gf-mfERG) was recorded with the Reti-port/scan21 (Roland Consult) using a stimulus of 61 hexagons. The implicit time (in milliseconds) and response density (RD, in nV/deg2) of the direct (DC) and induced (IC) components were used for comparison between lenses in physiological pupil conditions.

RESULTS

Although the EDOF decreased both the HCVA and the LCVA (one and two lines, respectively; p < 0.003), it still allowed a good VA. The EDOF lens induced a myopic shift in most retinal areas, with a higher and statistically significant effect on the nasal retina. No differences in the implicit times of the DC and IC components were observed between SV and EDOF. Compared with the SV, the EDOF lens showed a higher RD in the IC component in the foveal region (p = 0.032). In the remaining retinal areas, the EDOF evoked lower, non-statistically significant RD in both the DC and IC components.

CONCLUSIONS

The EDOF myopia control CL enhanced the response of the inner layers of the fovea. This might suggest that, besides other mechanisms potentially involved, the central foveal retinal activity might be involved in the mechanism of myopia control with these lenses.

Visual Performance and Higher Order Aberrations Obtained With Omafilcon A Dual-Focus and Single-Vision Contact Lens Designs

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the visual performance and monochromatic higher-order aberrations (HOAs) obtained while wearing a MiSight dual-focus (DF) contact lenses (CL) in comparison with a single-vision contact lens (SVCL).

METHODS

A randomized, double-masked, cross-over study was performed. Participants were fitted with a DFCL and a SVCL composed of the same material (omafilcon A) and parameters. Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution high-contrast (100%) and low-contrast (10%) visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) for 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree were measured. Higher-order aberrations were also evaluated using a Hartmann-Shack aberrometer with the CLs on.

RESULTS

Twenty-four subjects (21 females and 3 males) with a mean age of 21.9±1.9 years (range: 18-27) were included. Low-contrast VA was significantly lower with the DFCL regarding the SVCL design (0.39±0.23 vs 0.25±0.18, P=0.002). However, there were no differences in high-contrast VA between both CLs (-0.03±0.10 vs -0.09±0.14, P=0.187). Contrast sensitivity was lower with the DFCL under all spatial frequencies (P≤0.048). Second-, third-, fourth-, and fifth-order aberrations were significantly (P<0.001) higher for the DFCL. There were also significant differences between DFCL and SVCL in defocus (0.87±0.28 vs 0.16±0.35, P<0.001), oblique trefoil (-0.16±0.27 vs -0.01±0.08, P=0.005), vertical coma (0.13±0.17 vs 0.00±0.08, P=0.002), and spherical aberration (0.09±0.11 vs -0.02±0.05, P=0.002).

CONCLUSION

Visual performance for detecting low-contrast targets is reduced when wearing MiSight DFCL compared with a SVCL with the same material. The main reason might be the induction of second-order and HOAs by the DFCL design.

Visual Quality Assessment and Comparison of Monofocal and Multifocal Scleral Lens Designs: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

To compare visual quality, contrast sensitivity, stereopsis, subjective vision, and comfort between monofocal and multifocal scleral lens (SL) designs.

METHODS

An experimental, cross over and short-term pilot study has been performed. Nineteen presbyopic patients (51.9±3.8 years) with regular corneas participated voluntarily in the study and Onefit MED monofocal and multifocal SL designs were fitted bilaterally. Subjective vision and comfort, contrast sensitivity function, stereopsis, high- and low-contrast visual acuity (VA) at 4 m and 40 cm under photopic and mesopic conditions, and defocus curves were measured. Data analysis was performed with nonparametric tests. P<0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

RESULTS

Mean addition power of the prescribed lenses was 1.72±0.38 diopters. Multifocal design showed a statistically significant improvement for intermediate and near vision in the defocus curve under photopic and mesopic conditions (P<0.05), however, worsening in stereopsis (P<0.05) and contrast sensitivity for high spatial frequencies (P<0.05). Distance visual acuity (VA) showed significantly lower values under mesopic conditions for high- and low-contrast tests (P<0.05), and on low-contrast test under photopic conditions (P<0.001) with the multifocal design.

CONCLUSION

Multifocal SLs showed better visual performance at intermediate and near distances without compromising distance vision under photopic conditions for a high-contrast test when compared with monofocal design.

The influence of large-diameter multifocal contact lens on ocular surface, visual quality, and visual function for presbyopic adults with dry eye syndromes

This study investigated the influence of large-diameter multifocal contact lenses on the ocular surface, visual quality, and visual function for presbyopic adults with dry eye syndromes. The study enrolled 40-55-year-old adults with presbyopia and dry eye syndromes (DES). The subjects were randomly assigned to three groups wearing different designs of contact lenses (Proclear, SMR, and Optimum) for 6-8 h a day for two weeks. Ocular surface health, tear quality, visual quality, and visual function were measured before and after lens wear. No significant difference was observed across all three groups for the amount of conjunctival redness, blink frequency (lens on), and stereopsis vision before and after wearing. Although there seemed to be a significant declining trend for corneal staining and limbal redness, non-invasive tear break-up time (TBUT), and lipid layer thickness while lens wear, the measured values were all within the normal range. Vice-versa after lens removal, results also showed significant improvement on lipid layer thickness, blink frequency (lens off), and contact TBUT. A significant improvement was observed in the modulation transfer function (MTF) of the total area ratio after wearing contact lenses. In contrast, the MTF of the high-order aberration area ratio resulting from lens wear was lower than that of the baseline measurement. There are also significant improvements observed for SMR and Optimum regarding near visual acuity, near point of accommodation, and the subjective questionnaire (OSDI and VBP) scores. Although it is difficult to avoid a specific negative impact on the ocular surface and tear film, visual function and visual quality can still be positively improved, especially shown on larger diameter and distance-center designed multifocal contact lenses.

Comparison of visual performance and image quality between a myopia-control contact lens and a single-vision contact lens

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the visual performance and image quality of concentric dual-focus-designed contact lenses (CLs) compared with single-vision CLs in myopic Chinese people.

METHODS

Twenty myopic volunteers aged between 18 and 26 years were recruited at a university eye hospital to wear both defocus-incorporated soft contact (DISC) lenses and single-vision CLs for 1 week in random order. High- and low-contrast visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), ocular higher-order aberrations (HOA), Strehl ratio and the Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire were assessed with each type of CL at weekly follow-up.

RESULTS

Distance VA was not affected by DISC lenses compared to single-vision CLs in either high (p = 0.414) or low contrast (p = 0.431). However, there was a significant reduction in low-contrast near VA with DISC lenses compared with single-vision CLs (p = 0.011). The differences of CS between DISC lenses and single-vision CLs were significantly associated with lighting conditions and spatial frequencies (F = 128.81, P < 0.001). Compared with single-vision CLs, wavefront aberrations of DISC lenses were significantly increased in total HOA, trefoil, and spherical aberrations for either 3.0 mm or 6.0 mm pupil size. The Strehl ratio wearing DISC lenses reduced significantly compared to the single-vision CLs (p < 0.001) at a pupil diameter of 6.0 mm. QoV scores were higher overall (p = 0.026) and frequency (p = 0.019) with DISC lenses than with single-vision CLs, indicating poorer visual performance.

CONCLUSION

DISC lenses provide satisfactory distance VA. However, the higher scores of the QoV questionnaire with DISC lenses may be related to decreased CS at medium or high spatial frequencies and increased higher-order aberrations.

Peripheral Refraction and Visual Function of Novel Perifocal Ophthalmic Lens for the Control of Myopia Progression

This study aimed to evaluate the peripheral defocus induced with a novel perifocal ophthalmic lens for myopia progression control and the potential impact on visual function. This experimental, non-dispensing crossover study evaluated 17 myopic young adults. The peripheral refraction was measured using an open-field autorefractor, at 2.50 m from the target point, in two eccentric points, 25° temporal, 25° nasal, and central vision. Visual contrast sensitivity (VCS) was measured at 3.00 m with a Vistech system VCTS 6500 in low light conditions. Light disturbance (LD) was assessed with a light distortion analyzer 2.00 m away from the device. Peripheral refraction, VCS, and LD were assessed with a monofocal lens and perifocal lens (with an add power of +2.50 D on the temporal side of the lens, and +2.00 D on the nasal side). The results showed that the perifocal lenses induced an average myopic defocus of -0.42 ± 0.38 D (p-value < 0.001) in the nasal retina, at 25° The changes induced by the lower add power in the nasal part of the lens did not induce statistically significant changes in the refraction of the temporal retina. The VCS and LD showed no significant differences between the monofocal and perifocal lenses.

Trends in myopia management attitudes and strategies in clinical practice: Survey of eye care practitioners in Africa

PURPOSE

There remains a lack of information on the perception and adoption of myopia control strategies among African eye care practitioners (ECPs). This study provides an African perspective to similar previous studies conducted in other parts of the world.

METHODS

A self-administered survey in English and French was distributed to ECPs across Africa. The items on the questionnaire assessed their level of concern about the increasing prevalence of paediatric myopia, perceived efficacy, opinions on, and adoption of various myopia management modalities.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 330 ECPs working in 23 African countries. Respondents were highly concerned about the increasing prevalence of paediatric myopia in their clinic (median 8/10) and perceived approved myopia control soft contact lenses as the most effective at slowing myopia progression (mean perceived reduction in myopia progression ± SD; 53.9 ± 27.1%), followed by single vision spectacles (53.1 ± 30.9%), and orthokeratology (52.8 ± 28.0%). Multifocal soft contact lenses (40.4 ± 25.8%) and pharmaceutical agents such as topical atropine drops (39.5 ± 27.1%) were perceived as least effective in slowing myopia progression. Although ECPs reported being aware of various myopia control strategies, they still mainly prescribed single vision spectacles to a large proportion (64.3 ± 29.9%) of young progressing myopes. Nearly one-third (27%) of ECPs who prescribed single vision lenses stated they were concerned about the cost implications to patients. Other reported concerns included safety of, and inadequate information about myopia control options.

CONCLUSIONS

African ECPs continue to prescribe single vision lenses for progressing myopes despite being aware of the various myopia control options. Practitioners' perceptions of the efficacy of several modalities to slow myopia progression do not align with the current best evidence. Clear practice guidelines and continuing education on myopia control are warranted to inform and guide the management of myopic patients in Africa.

A comparison of vision-related quality of life between Defocus Incorporated Soft Contact (DISC) lenses and single-vision spectacles in Chinese children

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the vision-related quality of life (VRQoL) between Defocus Incorporated Soft Contact (DISC) lenses and single-vision spectacles in Chinese children, in order to evaluate their visual performance and subjective acceptance of this bifocal designed contact lenses treatment.

METHODS

Chinese participants aged 7 to 12 years, with myopia of -4.00 to -0.75 D, astigmatism < 1.50 D, and monocular best-corrected visual acuity 0.0 or better, were recruited in the study. All participants had been wearing DISC lenses, or single-vision spectacles, for the last 6 to 18 months and were requested to complete the routine ocular examination and Chinese version of the Pediatric Refractive Error Profile (PREP 2) questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 7 scales: vision, symptoms, appearance, activities, handling, peer perception, and overall score. According to their habitual correction modalities, fifty-four children were allocated to the DISC group and 56 to the single-vision spectacles group. A generalized linear model was fitted to assess variables associated with the PREP 2 score.

RESULTS

Participants wearing DISC lenses scored significantly higher than those wearing single-vision spectacles for vision, appearance, activities, peer perception, and overall (all P < 0.05). The improvement of VRQoL in the DISC group was mainly represented in appearance, peer perception, and activities. The quality of life improved more for older participants on scales of vision, symptoms, handling, appearance, and overall score (all P < 0.05). The interaction between treatment and age was statistically significant for the activities scale (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

DISC lens wear significantly improves VRQoL in Chinese children compared with single-vision spectacles for most of the survey scales, especially in the areas of appearance, peer perception, and activities. The benefits provided by DISC lenses contribute to greater satisfaction than single-vision spectacles for myopic children.

Dynamics of the accommodative response and facility with dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of using dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control on the dynamics of the accommodative response and facility.

METHODS

24 young adult myopes were fitted with dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control (MiSight®) and single-vision soft contact lenses (Proclear®). The WAM-5500 open-field autorefractor was used to measure the dynamics of the accommodative response (magnitude and variability) in binocular conditions, with accommodative data being gathered from the dominant eye, at three viewing distances (500 cm, 40 cm, and 20 cm) during 90 s. Also, the binocular accommodative facility was assessed with the WAM-5500 autorefractor. All participants performed the same experimental protocol with the dual-focus (MiSight) and single-vision (Proclear) soft contact lenses, with both experimental sessions being carried in two different days and following a counterbalanced order.

RESULTS

This study showed greater lags of accommodation with the MiSight than the Proclear lenses at near distances (40 cm: 1.27 ± 0.77 vs. 0.68 ± 0.37 D, corrected p-value = 0.002, Cohen-d = 0.90; and 20 cm: 1.47 ± 0.84 vs. 1.01 ± 0.52 D, corrected p-value = 0.007, Cohen-d = 0.75), whereas a higher variability of accommodation was observed with the dual-focus than the single-vision lenses at 500 cm (0.53 ± 0.11 vs. 0.23 ± 0.10 D), 40 cm (0.82 ± 0.31 vs. 0.68 ± 0.37 D), and 20 cm (1.50 ± 0.56 vs. 1.15 ± 0.39 D) (corrected p-value < 0.001 in all cases, and Cohen-ds = 0.67-2.33). Also, a worse quantitative (27.75 ± 8.79 vs. 34.29 ± 10.08 cycles per minute, p = 0.029, Cohen-d = 0.48) and qualitative (23.68 ± 7.12 vs. 28.43 ± 7.97 score, p = 0.039, Cohen-d = 0.45) performance was observed with the MiSight when compared to the Proclear lenses.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control alters the dynamics of accommodative response and facility in the short-term. Although this optical design has demonstrated its effectiveness for myopia control, eye care specialists should be aware of the acute effects of these lenses on accommodation performance.

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.

Short-term tear film stability, optical quality and visual performance in two dual-focus contact lenses for myopia control with different optical designs

Purpose

To assess and compare short‐term visual and optical quality and tear film stability between two dual‐focus (DF) prototype myopia control contact lenses (CLs) having different inner zone diameters.

Methods

Twenty‐eight myopic subjects were included in this randomised, double‐masked crossover study. Refraction, best‐corrected visual acuity (VA) and tear film stability were measured at baseline (i.e., when uncorrected). Subjects were then binocularly fitted with the DF CLs, with only the sensorial dominant eye being assessed. Lenses were of the same material and had inner zone diameters of either 2.1 mm (S design) or 4.0 mm (M design). Visual and physical short‐term lens comfort, over‐refraction, best‐corrected VA, stereopsis at 40 cm, best‐corrected photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity (CS), size and shape of light disturbance (LD), wavefront aberrations, subjective quality of vision (QoV Questionnaire) and tear film stability were measured for each lens.

Results

Both CL designs decreased tear film stability compared with baseline (p < 0.05). VA and photopic CS were within normal values for the subjects' age with each CL. When comparing lenses, the M design promoted better photopic CS for the 18 cycles per degree spatial frequency (p < 0.001) and better LD (p < 0.02). However, higher‐order aberrations were improved with the S design (p = 0.02). No significant difference between the two CLs was found for QoV scores and tear film stability.

Conclusions

Both DF CLs provided acceptable visual performance under photopic conditions. The 4.0 mm inner zone gave better contrast sensitivity at high frequencies and lower light disturbance, while the 2.1 mm central diameter induced fewer higher‐order aberrations for a 5 mm pupil diameter. Both CLs produced the same subjective visual short‐term lens comfort.

The influence of contact lenses with different optical designs on the binocular vision and visual behavior of young adults

Theoretically, contact lenses change the accommodation and vergence demands of the eyes and directly or indirectly influence binocular vision. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of different optical designs of contact lenses on binocular vision and visual behavior among young adults. In this randomized, single-blinded experimental study, visual behavioral performance (VBP) and Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaires were used for preliminary screening. Nineteen myopic subjects aged 20-26 years (21.59 ± 1.40 years) participated in the study. Baseline values for subjective refraction and binocular visual functions were evaluated. All the subjects were randomly grouped to wear different optical designs of single-vision, progressive, and bifocal contact lenses. Eye examinations were performed on the first day (CL baseline), 2nd week, and 4th week of wearing the lenses. In addition, subjects completed the VBP and visual quality questionnaire again at the end of the examination. Single-vision contact lenses (Lens 1) increased accommodative lag, negative relative accommodation, and distant and near vergence; however, vergence facilities, accommodative facilities, heterophoria, and the comfort and posture balance dimensions in the VBP questionnaire were improved. Progressive contact lenses (Lens 2) reduced the lag of accommodation and near vergence; in addition, vergence facilities and accommodative facilities were also improved. Bifocal contact lenses (Lens 3) affected negative and positive relative accommodation, but vergence facilities and accommodative facilities also progressed. Furthermore, both progressive (Lens 2) and bifocal (Lens 3) contact lenses enhanced overall visual behavioral performance. In terms of visual quality, single-vision contact lenses (Lens 1) were the most comfortable, progressive and bifocal contact lenses reduced distant visual acuity and stability, progressive contact lenses (Lens 2) had more complaints about halos at night, and bifocal contact lens (Lens 3) users were more likely to have double vision. Compared with single-vision contact lenses, progressive and bifocal contact lenses relaxed accommodation, reduced the lag of accommodation, and improved visual behavioral performance. Although the vergence function showed a significant change, it did not show worse trends when wearing contact lenses. Contact lenses with different optical designs have a great influence on binocular vision and visual behavioral performance.

Contrast Sensitivity with Center-distance Multifocal Soft Contact Lenses

SIGNIFICANCE

The contrast sensitivity (CS) function provides a more detailed assessment of vision than visual acuity. It was found that center-distance multifocal contact lens designs that are increasingly being prescribed for myopia control reduce distance photopic and mesopic CS in nonpresbyopic patients across a range of spatial frequencies.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the effect of center-distance multifocal soft contact lenses (MFCLs) on CS under photopic and mesopic conditions in nonpresbyopic patients.

METHODS

Twenty-five myopic, nonpresbyopic adults were fitted binocularly with three lenses: Biofinity single vision contact lens (SVCL), Biofinity Multifocal D +2.50 add, and NaturalVue Multifocal in random order. Contrast sensitivity was measured at distance (4 m) under photopic and mesopic conditions and at near under photopic conditions. Log CS by spatial frequency and area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF) were analyzed between lenses.

RESULTS

Distance photopic CS at each spatial frequency was higher with the SVCL than the MFCLs (P < .001), but there was no difference between the MFCLs (P = .71). Distance mesopic CS from 1.5 to 12 cycles per degree (cpd) was higher with the SVCL than the MFCLs (all P < .02); however, at 18 cpd, there was no difference in CS between NaturalVue and the SVCL (P = .76), possibly because of spurious resolution. Photopic AULCSF for the SVCL was roughly 10% greater than both MFCLs. Contrast sensitivity at near was generally similar between lenses, only slightly lower with the NaturalVue at 11 and 15.5 cpd, but AULCSF at near was not different between lenses (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Multifocal contact lenses reduce distance contrast sensitivity under both photopic and mesopic conditions. There is no clinically significant difference in near CS among all three lenses. These data show that MFCLs have effects on vision that are not captured by standard high-contrast visual acuity testing.

Changes in accommodation and behavioural performance with a contact lens for myopia management: A comparison between a dual-focus and a single-vision soft contact lens

Introduction

Dual‐focus soft contact lenses for myopia management have demonstrated to be an effective strategy to reduce myopia progression. However, this optical design has been shown to alter visual quality and accommodative function. The aim of this study was to examine the accommodative and behavioural performance during the execution of a psychomotor vigilance task (PVT) while wearing dual‐focus and single‐vision soft contact lenses.

Methods

The steady‐state accommodative response was recorded with the WAM‐5500 binocular open‐field autorefractor during the execution of a 10‐min PVT at 50 cm either with the dual‐focus (MiSight 1‐day) or single‐vision (Proclear 1‐day) soft contact lenses, using a sample of 23 healthy young adults. Each experimental session was performed on two different days in a counterbalanced order.

Results

A greater lag of accommodation, variability of accommodation and reaction time was found while wearing dual‐focus in comparison with single‐vision soft contact lenses (mean differences during the 10‐min PVT were 0.58 ± 0.81 D, p < 0.001; 0.31 ± 0.17 D, p < 0.001 and 15.22 ± 20.93 ms, p = 0.002, respectively). Also, a time‐on‐task effect was found for the variability of accommodation and reaction time (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), observing higher values over time. However, the lag of accommodation did not change significantly as a function of time‐on‐task (p = 0.33).

Conclusion

Dual‐focus soft contact lens wear influences the steady‐state accommodative response and behavioural performance during the execution of a visual vigilance task in the short‐term. Eye care practitioners should be aware of these effects when prescribing these lenses for myopia management, and provide specific recommendations according to the individual visual needs.

Comparison of peripheral refraction and higher-order aberrations between orthokeratology and multifocal soft contact lens designed with highly addition

Purpose

To compare peripheral defocus, higher-order aberrations (HOAs), and contrast visual acuity (CVA) in myopic children wearing orthokeratology (OK) lenses and multifocal soft contact lenses (MSCLs) designed with highly addition.

Methods

This is a prospective, nonrandomized, controlled study. Subjects at 8 to 13 years of age with spherical equivalent refraction from − 1.00 to − 5.00 dioptres (D) were included in the OK group (n = 30) and MSCL group (n = 23). Relative peripheral corneal defocus (RPCD) and relative peripheral refraction (RPR) were measured before and after wearing lenses. HOAs including spherical aberration (SA), coma, trefoil, and total HOAs, and high (100%) and low (10%) CVA were compared between the groups. Axial length (AL) was measured before and after wearing the lenses for 1 year.

Results

After wearing the lenses, subjects in the MSCL group had RPCD and RPR values similar to the OK group at the paracentral (within 2 mm of the cornea or 20° of the retina, all p > 0.05) but larger than the OK group at the periphery (all p < 0.05). All HOAs increased after wearing the lenses except the trefoil in the MSCL group (all p < 0.05). HOAs increased more in the OK group (all p < 0.05). The 100% and 10% CVAs were worse in the MSCL group (p = 0.02 and p = 0.004). After 1 year, AL elongation was 0.37 mm (SD = 0.16) in the MSCL group and 0.28 mm (0.16) in the OK group (p = 0.06).

Conclusion

MSCL produced larger myopic defocus at the periphery, increased less HOAs and had worse CVA than OK lens. The high addition of this MSCL did not result in better myopia control efficacy

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR1800018564. Registered 25 September 2018; retrospectively registered, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=31376

Impact of dual-focus soft contact lens wear on near work-induced transient myopia

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Dual-focus soft contact lenses are effective in slowing myopia progression; however, their influence on near work-induced transient myopia (NITM) remains unknown. When performing a 5-min near task at 20 cm, we observed that dual-focus soft contact lens wear induced greater lags of accommodation and a lower initial NITM than single-vision soft contact lenses, which provides relevant information for better understanding the impact of using this optical design on the accommodative function.

BACKGROUND

NITM has been proposed as a myogenic factor, although it is a matter of debate by the scientific community. The main objective of this study was to assess the short-term effect of wearing dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control on the steady-state accommodative response and NITM.

METHODS

Twenty-four young myope adults wore, on two different days, dual-focus and single-vision soft contact lenses, while the accommodative response was dynamically measured with an open-field autorefractor during the execution of the NITM task. The shift and the time required to recover baseline levels in the refractive state after performing the 5-min near task (20 cm) were the main dependent variables.

RESULTS

We found a lower magnitude of accommodation during the execution of the near task with the dual-focus in comparison to the single-vision soft contact lenses (p < 0.001). There was a lower initial NITM with the dual-focus when compared to the single-vision lenses (corrected p-value = 0.003, Cohen's d = 0.68), but no statistically significant differences were observed for decay duration (p = 0.984).

CONCLUSIONS

Dual-focus soft contact lens wear causes a reduced accommodative response during a near task, and an initial small myopic shift at distance after a 5-min period of near viewing. The current findings may help to understand the mechanisms involved in myopia control with this optical strategy.

Influence of Lenslet Configuration on Short-Term Visual Performance in Myopia Control Spectacle Lenses

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate short-term visual performance and optical quality of three different lenslet configurations on myopia control spectacle lenses.

Materials and Methods: This study utilized a cross-over design. Distance visual acuity (VA) was measured in 50 myopic children; contrast sensitivity (CS) was measured in 36 myopic children. For each test, four spectacle lenses were evaluated in a random order: single-vision lens (SVL), lens with concentric rings of highly aspherical lenslets (HAL), lens with concentric rings of slightly aspherical lenslets (SAL), and lens with honeycomb configuration of spherical lenslets (HC). The modulation transfer function (MTF) and MTF area (MTFa) were used to determine optical quality. All tests were performed monocularly on the right eye with full correction.

Results: HAL and SAL had larger MTFa than HC. VA in lenses with lenslets was significantly reduced compared to SVL (all p < 0.01). The reduction in VA was worse with HC than with SAL (p = 0.02) and HAL (p = 0.03); no effect of lenslet asphericity was found (p > 0.05). VA changes induced by lenslets showed no correlation with spherical equivalent refraction (all p > 0.05) and were weakly positively associated with age for SAL (r = 0.36, p = 0.01) and HC (r = 0.31, p = 0.03), but not for HAL (p = 0.30). The area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF) decreased with HAL and HC (all p < 0.001) in all illumination levels, and AULCSF with HAL was higher than that with HC in a photopic condition (1.17 ± 0.10 vs. 1.10 ± 0.13, p = 0.0004). The presence of lenslets did not affect CS at 3 cycles per degree (cpd) (p = 0.80). At 6 to 18 cpd, CS was significantly reduced by HAL and HC (all p < 0.05), but not SAL (p > 0.05) compared to SVL. At high spatial frequencies (>12 cpd) both SAL and HAL reduced CS significantly less than HC (all p < 0.01).

Conclusion: Short-term visual performance was minimally impaired by looking through the lenslet structure of myopia control spectacle lenses. Concentric rings with aspherical lenslets had a significantly lower impact on both VA and CS than honeycomb configuration with spherical lenslets.

Tear film stability over a myopia control contact lens compared to a monofocal design

Clinical relevance: Tear film assessment is essential in contact lens wearers and it can improve the success rates of the fitting.Background: To compare the short-term effect of two contact lenses on pre-lens tear film stability and comfort: dual-focus contact lens (MiSight) and a monofocal contact lens (Proclear 1-day).Methods: This randomised, double-masked, crossover study was performed in twenty-eight healthy, myopic volunteers aged between 18 and 32 years (23.5 ± 4.1 years). Only one randomly chosen eye was assessed. Distance vision and refraction were evaluated at baseline. Each contact lens type (monofocal and dual-focus) was randomly fitted, always in both eyes. A visual analogue scale between 0 and 10 was used to assess general comfort, physical comfort, and visual comfort. Tear Film Surface Quality (TFSQ) index, TFSQ_area and auto Tear Break-Up Time were obtained using Medmont E-300 at baseline (naked eye condition) and 25 minutes after each contact lens insertion.Results: Refractive sphere and cylinder were, respectively, -1.36 ± 1.04 D (ranging from -6.00 to -0.25 D) and -0.23 ± 0.30 D (ranging from -0.75 to 0.00 D). TFSQ and TFSQ area were lower (meaning more stable tear film) at baseline when compared with both contact lens types (p < 0.025). Higher pre-lens tear instability (larger TFSQ and_TFSQ area values) was found with the dual-focus than the monofocal lens. Auto Tear Break-Up Time was higher at baseline than with each of the contact lenses, without statistically significant differences between both contact lens types. Visual analogue scales revealed statistically significant better scores in the monofocal contact lens than in dual-focus contact lens for general (0.77 ± 1.14 vs 3.12 ± 2.79), physical (0.96 ± 1.46 vs 2.19 ± 2.45) and visual comfort (1.27 ± 1.66 vs 3.92 ± 2.04).Conclusion: A slight reduction in short-term pre-lens tear film stability was found in the dual-focus design in comparison with the monofocal lens, potentially contributing to the deterioration of visual performance and comfort during dual-focus contact lens wear.

Exploring non-adherence to contact lens wear schedule: Subjective assessments and patient related factors in children wearing single vision and myopia control contact lenses

PURPOSE

To determine factors associated with non-adherence to contact lens wear schedule involving single vision and myopia control contact lenses in children.

METHODS

Data from 379 children enrolled in a prospective, double masked, randomized clinical trial, aged 8-13 years, cycloplegic spherical equivalent of -0.75 to -3.50D and wearing either: single vision silicone hydrogel (SiH) CL (control lens); two anti-myopia SiH CL that incorporated relative plus in the central and periphery in a stepped manner (test lens I and II); and two extended depth of focus hydrogel CL (test lens III and IV) was considered. A questionnaire was administered to the participants at every scheduled visit and gathered information on days of wear/week and subjective assessments of ocular comfort and visual quality on an analog scale of 1-10.Participants were categorized as "Adherent" when lens wear was ≥ 6 days/week or "Non-adherent" when lens wear ≤ 5 days/week. Categorized adherence data was summarized as a percentage across visits for each CL type. Differences between the two groups were analyzed using linear mixed model.

RESULTS

For the control lens, 79.6 % participants were adherent as compared to 63.7%-74.6% with test lenses (p=0.026). Non-adherence was greater in those that discontinued (p<0.001). Subjective ratings of visual quality for static and dynamic tasks were lower with non-adherent wearers and more variable between visits. Ocular comfort was also poorer in non-adherent wearers irrespective of lens material or lens design. Male gender, lower baseline myopia, lower high contrast visual acuity and esophoria were associated with a higher risk of non-adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

The study identified a wide range of factors associated with non-adherence to lens wear schedule. Paying specific attention to these factors when evaluating patients for CL wear and taking steps to ensure satisfaction in lens wear may promote longer term continuation of wear.