Power profiles of centre-distance multifocal soft contact lenses

Retinal image quality for multifocal lenses with on- and off-axis annular zones

Multi-focal intra-ocular or contact lenses, intended to increase depth of focus, conventionally have annular zones of additional refractive power, generating wavefront rings of coaxial spherical surfaces. It is, however, possible to influence depth of focus by changing not only the curvature of the wavefront, i.e., refractive power, in the annulus, but also the tilt, i.e., circularly symmetrical linear radial deviation imposed on the spherical wavefront. Employing the example of a single annulus bifocal, retinal image light distributions in the two regimes are calculated, using standard diffraction theory. Four measures of retinal image quality in through-focus scans show that plus power additions and wavefront tilts operate almost interchangeably. In testing these lenses, attention needs to be paid to the detailed operating characteristics of measuring devices of the Shack-Hartmann type to ensure that their grain and precision is compatible with the framework of the analysis.

Refractive power profiles of commercially available soft multifocal contact lenses for myopia control

PURPOSE

Lens power profiles can provide valuable insights on the imposed optical defocus and visual experience of contact lens wearers, especially in the context of myopia control. This study measured the refractive power profiles of multifocal soft contact lenses (MFCLs) currently used or that have the potential for use in myopia control using high spatial resolution aberrometry. The instrument's repeatability for determining MFCLs power profiles was also assessed.

METHOD

The power profiles of 10 MFCLs of various designs (centre-distance, centre-near and extended depth of focus) were measured using the Lambda-X NIMOEVO, a phase shifting Schlieren-based device. Power profiles were graphically expressed as measured power at each chord position and the maximum add power was calculated. The repeatability of the NIMOEVO was expressed as the within-subject standard deviation at each chord position for a subset of five MFCLs.

RESULTS

The measured distance powers differed from nominal powers for more than half of the MFCLs with a definable distance zone. There were variations in the chord position of the distance and near correction zones, rate of power transitions and calculated maximum add between the MFCLs which did not depend on lens design. For half of the MFCLs, the power profile shape was inconsistent between different nominal back vertex powers of the same design. The repeatability of the NIMOEVO was dependent on the lens design, with designs featuring faster rates of power change exhibiting worse repeatability.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences in MFCL power profiles were found which were not adequately represented in labelling. This is likely due to the small number of parameters used to define lens power characteristics. Eye health care practitioners should be aware of potential differences in power profiles between different MFCLs, which will impact the retinal defocus introduced during lens wear and the wearer's visual experience.

Simulation of daily soft multifocal contact lenses using SimVis Gekko: from in-vitro and computational characterization to clinical validation

Multifocal contact lenses (MCLs) are one of the solutions to correct presbyopia, but their adoption is not widespread. To address this situation, visual simulators can be used to refine the adaptation process. This study aims to obtain accurate simulations for a visual simulator (SimVis Gekko; 2EyesVision) of daily soft MCL designs from four manufacturers. In-vitro characterization of these MCLs-several powers and additions- was obtained using NIMO TR-1504. From the averaged relative power profiles across powers, phase maps were reconstructed and the Through-Focus Visual Strehl metric was calculated for each MCL design. The SimVis Gekko simulation corresponding to each MCL design was obtained computationally and bench-validated. Finally, the MCL simulations were clinically validated involving presbyopic patients. The clinical validation results show a good agreement between the SimVis Gekko simulations and the real MCLs for through-focus visual acuity (TF-VA) curves and VA at three real distances. All MCL designs showed a partial correlation higher than 0.90 and a Root Mean Square Error below 0.07 logMAR between the TF-VA of simulations and Real MCLs across subjects. The validity of the simulation approach using SimVis Gekko and in-vitro measurements was confirmed in this study, opening the possibility to accelerate the adaptation of MCLs.

Intraocular Straylight and Multifocal Soft Contact Lens Fit With a Myopia Control Approach

OBJECTIVES

Center-distance multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs) are used to slow myopia progression. We examined the effect of two MFCLs on intraocular straylight values in myopic individuals.

METHODS

Twenty-five young myopic adults were enrolled and were fit with three contact lenses (Biofinity sphere, Biofinity Multifocal, and NaturalVue Multifocal) in a random order over two study visits. Pupil size (NeurOptics VIP-300, Laguna Hills, CA) and contact lens centration were measured. Right eye intraocular straylight measurements were collected (OCULUS C-Quant; Wetzlar, Germany) and compared with a spectacle trial lens. Log straylight (LogSL) values and straylight residuals were analyzed using repeated-measures analyses of variance with Tukey-corrected post hoc t -tests.

RESULTS

The mean participant age (±SD) was 24.1±1.5 years, and right eye spherical equivalent refractive error was -3.38±1.53 DS. There was no difference in mesopic pupil size between visits ( P =0.68) and no difference in contact lens centration between lenses ( P =0.99). LogSL values differed by lens type ( P =0.004). LogSL with the spectacle trial lens was significantly greater than with each contact lens type (all P <0.05), but there were no significant differences in LogSL between the three contact lenses (all P >0.05). There was no difference between the three contact lens designs for straylight residuals ( P =0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Measured intraocular straylight for both MFCLs was not different than with a spherical soft contact lens. A significant increase in intraocular straylight with spectacle trial lens correction was observed compared with all contact lenses.

Effect of myopia management contact lens design on accommodative microfluctuations and eye movements during reading

BACKGROUND

Soft contact lenses have been developed and licensed for reducing myopia progression. These lenses have different designs, such as extended depth of focus (EDOF) and dual focus (DF). In this prospective, double-masked, cross-over study, different lens designs were investigated to see whether these had impact on accommodative microfluctuations and eye movements during reading.

METHODS

Participants were fitted with three lenses in a randomised order; a single vision (SV) design (Omafilcon A2; Proclear), a DF design (Omafilcon A2; MiSight), and an EDOF lens design (Etafilcon A; NaturalVue),. Accommodative microfluctuations were measured at 25 cm for at least 60s in each lens, using a Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorefractor adapted to continuously record accommodation at 22Hz. Eye movement data was collected with the Thomson Clinical Eye Tracker incorporating a Tobii Eye bar. Eye movements include fixations per row, fixations per minute, mean regressions per row, total number of regressions, and total rightward saccades. Accommodation data was analysed using power spectrum analysis. Differences between the lenses were compared using a related sample two-way Friedman test.

RESULTS

Twenty-three participants (18-29 years) were recruited to take part. The average mean spherical error was -2.65D ± 1.42DS, with an average age of 23.4 ± 3.5 years. No significant difference for accommodative microfluctuations was found. Significant differences were found for fixations per row (P = 0.03), fixations per minute (P = 0.008), mean regressions per row (P = 0.002), and total number of regressions (P = 0.002), but not total rightward saccades (P = 0.10). Post-hoc analysis indicated the EDOF lens results were significantly different from the other lenses, with more regressive eye movements observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Regressive saccades appear to increase when wearing EDOF lens designs, which may impact visual comfort. Further studies in children, over a longer period of adaptation are necessary to assess the potential impact of this finding on daily reading activities in children.

Quality of life after wearing multifocal contact lenses for myopia control for 2 weeks in the BLINK Study

PURPOSE

To validate Pediatric Refractive Error Profile 2 (PREP2) subscales that can be used to evaluate contact lens wearers and compare vision-specific quality of life measurements between children wearing multifocal and single vision contact lenses for 2 weeks.

METHODS

Two hundred and ninety-four myopic children aged 7-11 years (inclusive) were enrolled in the 3-year, double-masked Bifocal Lenses In Nearsighted Kids (BLINK) Study. Participants completed the PREP2 survey after having worn contact lenses for 2 weeks. The Vision, Symptoms, Activities and Overall PREP2 subscales were used to compare participants' subjective assessment while wearing +1.50 or +2.50 D add multifocal or single vision contact lenses. Rasch analysis was used to validate each subscale and to compare participants' subjective assessment of contact lens wear.

RESULTS

Item fit to the Rasch model was good for all scales, with no individual items having infit mean square statistics outside the recommended range (0.7-1.3). Response category function was acceptable for all subscales, with ordered category thresholds. Measurement precision, assessed by the Rasch person reliability statistic, was less than ideal (≥0.8) for three of the subscales, but met the minimum acceptable standard of 0.5. Scores for the Vision subscale differed by treatment assignment (p = 0.03), indicating that participants with the highest add power reported statistically worse quality of vision, although the difference was only 3.9 units on a scale of 1-100. Girls reported fewer symptoms than boys (p = 0.006), but there were no other differences between boys and girls.

CONCLUSIONS

Rasch analysis demonstrates that the PREP2 survey is a valid instrument for assessing refractive error-specific quality of life. These results suggest that vision-related quality of life is not meaningfully affected by 2 weeks of soft multifocal contact lens wear for myopia control.

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.

Multifocal contact lens myopia control: central and peripheral retinal image quality

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

That myopic defocus, even if restricted to the peripheral retina, inhibits eye growth in young monkey eyes has motivated the therapy of myopia control through multifocal contact lens wear in children.

BACKGROUND

To understand how eye-length regulating mechanisms are triggered by light requires knowledge of retinal light spread. That is largely lacking for the multifocal contact lenses used in the therapy because empirical methods identifying just the defocus in dioptres are inadequate.

METHODS

"Through-focus" diffraction computations in contact lens/eye models with typical normal eye parameters, including polychromatic light, the chromatic aberrations and an M-cone phototransduction layer, offer estimates of retinal image spread for a range of viewing distances.

RESULTS

Point- and edge-spread distributions of activation of phototransduction in the central retina show that the addition of multifocal zones produces some veiling for in-focus viewing and substantial improvement of image quality for near targets in the unaccommodated eye. These effects are much reduced in the retinal periphery.

CONCLUSION

Whatever therapeutic value there is in prescribing multifocal contact lenses for myopia control, it is not particularly dependent on the precise configuration of the multifocal zones, nor can it be ascribed to changes in image quality specific to the retinal periphery; its origin is more likely less blur for near targets, reducing the stimulus to accommodation.

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.

The use of autorefractors using the image-size principle in determining on-axis and off-axis refraction. Part 2: Theoretical study of peripheral refraction with the Grand Seiko AutoRef/Keratometer WAM-5500

PURPOSE

To determine, through simulations, the likely validity of Grand-Seiko autorefractors with annular targets in peripheral refraction.

METHODS

Using a physical model eye, the distance inside the eye to which the Grand Seiko AutoRef/Keratometer WAM-5500 beam was converging and the effective size of its outer diameter at the cornea were determined. Grand-Seiko refraction was calculated from R_x  = (θ + α)/h₁ , where θ is the angle of the ingoing radiation beam, h₁ is the height of the beam at the anterior cornea and α is the angle of the beam emerging from the eye following reflection at the retina. Two eye models were used: a Navarro schematic eye and a Navarro schematic eye with a contact lens having a highly positive aspheric front surface.

RESULTS

The instrument beam was determined to be converging towards the eye to a distance of 24.4 mm behind the corneal vertex, with a 2.46 mm effective size outer diameter of the beam at the anterior cornea. The Grand-Seiko refractions provided accurate estimates of peripheral refraction for the model eyes. The results were closer to Zernike refractions than to Zernike paraxial refraction. Spherical aberration influenced refraction by up to 0.5 D, and peripheral coma had limited influence.

CONCLUSION

Grand-Seiko autorefractors in current use, and having a circular annulus with an ingoing effective outer diameter at the front of the eye of about 2.4 mm, are likely to give valid peripheral refractions.

Multifocal contact lens design, not addition power, affects accommodation responses in young adult myopes

PURPOSE

Prolonged nearwork has been implicated in myopia progression. Accommodation responses of young-adult myopes wearing different multifocal contact lenses were compared.

METHODS

Twenty adults, 18-25 years, with myopia (spherical equivalent refraction -0.50 to -5.50 D, mean -2.1 ± 1.6 D) wore five lens types in random order: Proclear single vision distance (SV), MiSight concentric dual-focus +2.00 D Add (MS), Biofinity aspheric centre distance +1.50 D Add (CD1) and +2.50 D Add (CD2) (all Coopervision), and NaturalVue aspheric (Visioneering Technologies) (NVue). Using a Grand-Seiko WAN-5500 autorefractor with binocular correction and viewing right eye accommodative responses were measured after a 10 min adaptation period at 4.0, 1.0, 0.5, 0.33 and 0.25 m distances. Dynamic measurements were taken for 4 s at 6 Hz. Accommodative stimuli and responses were referenced to 4 m (i.e., refraction differences between 4 m and nearer distances). Accommodation lags and refraction instabilities (standard deviations of dynamic responses) were determined. For comparison, results were obtained for an absolute presbyopic eye, where trial lenses counteracted the accommodation stimulus.

RESULTS

For SV and MS, accommodation responses were similar to the stimulus values. For aspheric lenses CD1, CD2 and NVue, accommodation responses were approximately 1.0 D lower across the stimulus range than with SV and MS, and rates of change were approximately 0.84 D per 1 D stimulus change. MS produced greater refraction instabilities than other lenses. For the presbyope, changes in refraction matched the trial lenses, indicating that corrections due to measurement through the different lenses were not needed.

CONCLUSION

Reductions in accommodation response occurred in young myopes wearing aspheric multifocal contact lenses independent of the labelled 'add' power. The concentric dual-focus MS lens produced minimal lags but had greater instability than the other lenses. The results indicate that the mechanism of multifocal contact lenses slowing myopia progression is unlikely to be through relaxing accommodation, at least in young adults.

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.