Peripheral visual acuity with monovision and other contact lens corrections for presbyopia

We have conducted two experiments to investigate the effect of monovision and other contact lens corrections for presbyopia upon peripheral visual acuity. In the first study, we measured binocular peripheral visual acuity using Landolt rings with seven subjects wearing a monovision correction. The Landolt rings were presented at eccentricities of 10, 20, 40, and 70 degrees on each side of the subject, with near additions of +1.50 D, +2.50 D, and no addition. We found no significant effect of monovision correction on peripheral visual acuity. In the second experiment we measured the peripheral visual acuity of 11 presbyopic subjects wearing distance contact lenses with lookover spectacles, soft progressive bifocal contact lenses, soft concentric bifocal contact lenses, monovision contact lenses, modified monovision contact lenses, and hard bifocal contact lenses using Koenig bar targets. There were no significant differences in peripheral visual acuity between any of the contact lens corrections for presbyopia.     

Comparative visual performance of three presbyopic contact lens corrections.

We compared the visual performance of a soft diffractive (DIFF) bifocal contact lens, a near center (CN) concentric bifocal design, and monovision (MV), using a comprehensive vision testing protocol. Fifteen presbyopic subjects who were successfully wearing DIFF bifocal contact lenses participated in the study. Of the three systems tested, MV provided best visual acuity at distance and near; less than one line of acuity was lost relative to best spectacle acuity under all lighting and contrast conditions, and there was less disturbance of a point source of light. Both bifocal corrections gave similar visual acuity performance, with more lines of acuity lost relative to spectacles at near compared to distance. However, the concentric bifocal induced more ghosting at near than the other two systems. Stereopsis was compromised at distance with MV correction, but all systems performed worse than spectacles at near. An understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of presbyopic contact lens options allows the clinician to improve management of the presbyope who wishes to wear contact lenses.     

Presbyopic fitting strategies: Fitting lenses to patients,not patients to lenses

Eighty-six presbyopic patients who were interested in contact lens wear but had no history of using contact lenses for the correction of presbyopia were entered into a study performed across five independent contact lens practices. Patients were fit utilizing a fitting strategy flowchart that included monovision, diffractive, and aspheric simultaneous and alternating vision presbyopic corrections. At the conclusion of the study, 83% of the patients were successful utilizing the criterion that the patient was still actively wearing the lenses. Fifty-two percent were fit with monovision, 14% were fit in alternating vision lenses, while 6% and 10% were fit with aspheric and diffractive lenses, respectively, including modified monovision.     

Comparison of multifocal and monovision soft contact lens corrections in patients with low-astigmatic presbyopia.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess visual performance and patient satisfaction with two presbyopic soft contact lens modalities. METHODS: A crossover study of 38 patients with presbyopia was conducted. Patients were randomized first into either multifocal (Bausch & Lomb SofLens Multifocal) or monovision (SofLens 59) for 1 month. Visual performance was measured with high- and low-contrast visual acuity at distance and near and near stereoacuity. Patients' satisfaction was measured by the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument questionnaire and by recording the patient's final lens preference. RESULTS: Patients maintained at least 20/20 binocular vision with both multifocal (MF) and monovision (MV) contact lenses under high-contrast conditions at distance and near. Under low-contrast conditions, patients lost less than a line of vision from the best spectacle correction to either multifocal or monovision contact lens correction at distance (pMF = 0.001, pMV = 0.006). Under low-contrast conditions at near, multifocal wearers lost five to six letters and monovision wearers lost two letters of vision (pMF < 0.001, pMV = 0.03, pMF/MV = 0.005). The average stereoacuity decreased by 79 s arc with monovision vs. multifocal contact lenses (p = 0.002). On the NEI-RQL, patients reported worse clarity of vision (pMF = 0.01, pMV < 0.001), more symptoms (pMF = 0.09, pMV = 0.01), and an improvement in their appearance with contact lens wear (pMF < 0.001, pMV < 0.001). Seventy-six percent of patients reported that they preferred multifocal contact lenses, and 24% preferred monovision contact lenses (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The majority of our patients preferred multifocals to monovision, most likely because the Bausch & Lomb SofLens Multifocal provides excellent visual acuity without compromising stereoacuity to the same degree as monovision.     

Change in refractive anisometropia in presbyopic adults wearing monovision contact lens correction.

BACKGROUND: Researchers studying the refractive development of infant monkeys suggest that monocular refractive error changes in response to induced ametropia; specifically, slightly blurring one eye may cause a difference to develop between each eye's correction (anisometropia) when none existed before wearing the correction. The important question of whether similar changes occur in humans has not been addressed. METHODS: We compared premonovision correction and the correction after at least 12 months of monovision soft contact lens wear (artificially induced anisometropia prescribed to focus one eye for near and the other for distance so that bifocal glasses are not needed) for 62 healthy predominantly female soft contact lens wearers and (a) 62 age- and sex-matched spectacle wearers and (b) 62 age- and generally sex-matched contact lens wearers. Control patients wore corrections of like power and had similar follow-up periods. RESULTS: Development of anisometropia occurred significantly more frequently among monovision wearers than among spectacle (p = 0.043) or contact lens wearing controls (p = 0.025). Changes in anisometropia greater than or equal to 0.50 D, with amounts up to 1.25 D, occurred in 29% of monovision wearers. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in refractive correction occur for adults who have monocular blur intentionally induced with monovision contact lenses. Similar changes may also occur after refractive surgery if one eye is corrected for a different distance than the other. Care should be taken when counseling presbyopic patients so that they are aware of the possibility of inducing refractive changes after monovision correction.     

Stereopsis in presbyopes wearing monovision and simultaneous vision bifocal contact lenses

One of the advantages suggested for contact lens bifocals over monovision treatment of presbyopia is that there may be less impairment of binocular function. We evaluated nearpoint stereoposis on the Titmus stereotest for 10 presbyopic patients. Testing was done under five conditions; monovision and binocular correction with each of four marketed simultaneous bifocal contact lenses. Simultaneous vision bifocals tested produced at least as much reduction in stereopsis as monovision compared to baseline spectacle correction. Repeat testing of bifocal stereopsis with best near over-refraction suggested that a substantial portion of the stereo reduction could be attributed to insufficient effective adds with the bifocal contacts.     

The holographic/diffractive bifocal contact lens

Presently, practitioners are somewhat limited in the available options for correction of presbyopia with contact lenses. Neither the form of contact lens design (segmented, aspheric, or concentric) or fitting scheme (such as monovision) have high enough success to dominate the market. To meet this growing demand, a new holographic/diffractive bifocal contact lens is being introduced by several manufacturers^1,2,3,4,5. Although different lens materials and slightly modified designs have been proposed, these lenses all form images based upon a similar concept. This paper attempts to simplify the principles behind “how the holographic bifocal contact lens works.” This will include a review of diffraction and refraction as well as the application of these concepts in the diffractive lens design. Comparisons between the holographic and conventional bifocal contact lenses along with advantages and disadvantages will also be presented.     

Monovision vs. aspheric bifocal contact lenses: a crossover study

Twenty selected presbyopic patients were fitted with both monovision correction and Hydrocurve bifocal contact lens correction in a crossover study. Eighty percent of the population preferred bifocal correction and 20% preferred monovision. The results suggest that bifocal contact lens correction should be explored prior to considering monovision correction.     

Contrast sensitivity with contact lens corrections for presbyopia

We measured contrast sensitivity at three distances (330 mm, 660 mm and 4 m) with six contact lens and two multifocal spectacle corrections for presbyopia. The two spectacle corrections were D-segment bifocals and trifocals and the contact lens corrections were distance contact lens with lookover spectacles, soft progressive bifocals, soft concentric bifocals, monovision, modified monovision, and hard crescent segment bifocals. The spectacle corrections in general gave better results for the contrast sensitivity function (CSF), than did the contact lens corrections. Distance contact lenses with lookover spectacles performed best of the contact lens corrections used. However, the differences in CSF between the various contact lens corrections were small and not statistically significant.     

Presbyopic contact lenses

The year 1999 will be remembered as the one in which a very successful bifocal soft contact lens was finally available for the millions of presbyopic and emerging presbyopic Baby Boomers. As a result, soft bifocal fits almost tripled in 1 year. The introduction in 1999 of new daily disposable and new high oxygen permeable extended wear soft contact lenses will give practitioners more options to be successful with monovision. Tips from several practitioners on being successful with bifocal soft lenses are given. It cannot be stressed enough, however, that for patients with presbyopia to be successful with these lenses, they must be willing to compromise somewhat on the quality of vision they remember as a 30-year-old.     

A market survey of contact lens practice in Hong Kong

Purpose : The aim of this survey was to evaluate the use of contact lenses, current prescribing habits of practitioners and the development of the contact lens market in Hong Kong. Methods : Questionnaires were sent to all registered contact lens practitioners in Hong Kong. This questionnaire sought information about their choices on prescribing contact lenses and lens care products and their opinions on continuing education and future trends of contact lens development. Results : A total of 286 responses (22 per cent) were returned. On average, the respondents reported that 36 per cent of their patients were contact lens wearers and most were myopes. The ratio of new fittings to refittings was 1:3. Of the contact lens wearers, 66 per cent were fitted with planned replacement lenses, mostly daily disposable lenses. Multipurpose solution was the most popular lens care regimen prescribed. Only 48 per cent of astigmatic patients were fitted with toric lenses and the use of overnight orthokeratology and silicone hydrogel lenses was limited. Single vision contact lenses with over‐spectacles and monovision contact lenses were the most popular management for presbyopes. Dryness was the major problem reported by contact lens wearers. Practitioners look forward to further development of custom‐made toric, multifocal and silicone hydrogel lenses. The major source of new contact lens information was communication with contact lens suppliers. Conclusion : Compared to previous reports, there was no significant change in the prescribing habits of practitioners. The major complaint of contact lens wearers is still ocular dryness. The contact lens market is driven by younger contact lens wearers, and planned replacement soft contact lenses together with multipurpose solutions dominate. The use of bifocal/multifocal lenses remained low and practitioners want low cost bifocal/multifocal contact lenses with better visual performance and toric lenses with a wider range in parameters. The use of overnight wear lenses such as silicone hydrogel and ortho‐k lenses is limited and 30 days continuous wear silicone hydrogel lenses are prescribed mainly for daily wear.     

Quality of vision with presbyopic contact lens correction: subjective and light sensitivity rating

PURPOSE: To quantify the quality of vision achieved with multifocal and bifocal contact lenses. METHODS: We analyzed differential light sensitivity by computerized automatic perimetry in 21 patients wearing monofocal soft contact lenses (group 1, controls) and multifocal and bifocal contact lenses (groups 2 and 3, respectively). Seven patients each were fitted with multifocal or bifocal contact lenses; seven patients were without contact lenses (without correction for testing the visual periphery and with near-vision correction using monofocal contact lens for testing the central 30 degrees of vision). The type of correction was randomly changed in a crossover fashion so that each eye was examined at different times with different corrections. Humphrey 640 VFA computerized automated perimetry was used to test visual fields at baseline, 45 days, and 3, 4.5, and 6 months. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference was found between the global sensitivities (GS) of the central visual field in patients with near-vision monofocal contact lenses and with bifocal contact lenses (P=0.0273) and between the GS of the central visual fields with multifocal contact lenses and with bifocal contact lenses (P=0.0261). In both cases, the GS were significantly reduced with bifocal contact lenses (total GS: group 1, 11256 dB (Decibels); group 2, 11154 dB; group 3, 10679 dB). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that there is reduced differential light sensitivity in the central 30 deg of the visual field with bifocal contact lenses compared with multifocal contact lenses and monofocal contact lenses (controls).     

The effect of monovision contact lens wear on driving performance

Background : A number of studies have highlighted the problems with driving reported by wearers of monovision contact lens corrections. In this study, we wished to investigate this further, by determining whether driving performance as measured on the open road under daytime conditions is worse when drivers wear their monovision contact lenses compared to their habitual correction. Methods : Thirteen subjects with healthy eyes and corrected visual acuity of 6/6 were selected. Each had worn monovision contact lenses for at least three months. All subjects had their driving performance assessed while driving their own vehicles on an open road course, with both monovision contact lenses and their other habitual correction (spectacles or unaided). Results : No statistically significant differences were found in driving performance when subjects wore their monovision contact lenses compared to when they wore their habitual distance correction. Conclusions : The results indicate that monovision does not adversely affect driving performance in daylight hours for adapted wearers. However, limitations in the study design are acknowledged, including the relatively small sample size, lack of standardisation of the habitual correction and the use of adapted wearers. Future studies are recommended to investigate these issues further.     

Interest of presbyopes in contact lens correction and their success with monovision.

The presbyopic population is seen as a large potential source of contact lens wearers. The aims of this study were: (1) to estimate the percentage of presbyopes interested in contact lenses, (2) to ascertain the success of interested presbyopes with monovision correction, and (3) to determine the percentage willing to continue wearing monovision lenses after 1 month's trial. Seven practitioners in Sydney surveyed consecutive presbyopes attending their practices about their interest in contact lenses. Of the 1133 presbyopes surveyed, 314 (28%) were interested in trying monovision lenses. A total of 72 patients were subsequently fitted with monovision in high water content hydrogel form. After 1 month, 46 of these patients (64%) were still wearing the lenses, and 39 (54%) expressed willingness to continue with monovision correction. The major reasons for discontinuation from lens wear during the 1-month trial were inadequate vision and difficulty in lens handling.     

Patient response to concentric bifocal contact lenses.

We evaluated the visual results and success rate with a center-near concentric simultaneous vision bifocal contact lens. Forty subjects (screened from 175 presbyopic applicants) entered the study and were fitted with the CIBA Spectrum bifocal lenses (BCL) and also with single vision distance contact lenses combined with reading glasses (DCL). Visual acuity and stereoacuity measurements were made at dispensing and after 8 weeks of regular bifocal contact lens wear. At both times, visual acuity measurements with BCL were significantly reduced by 1-1.5 lines compared to DCL. Stereoacuity was reduced by 32-36" with BCL compared to DCL. Thirty-two patients completed the study and 27 chose to continue wearing BCL after completion of the study. None of the subjects had adverse corneal findings or problems of discomfort. The primary reason for BCL discontinuation was blurred vision. The data was retrospectively analyzed to identify risk factors for discontinuance--none were significant.     

An international survey of contact lens prescribing for presbyopia

Purpose: The aim was to determine world‐wide patterns of fitting contact lenses for the correction of presbyopia. Methods: Up to 1,000 survey forms were sent to contact lens fitters in each of 38 countries between January and March every year over five consecutive years (2005 to 2009). Practitioners were asked to record data relating to the first 10 contact lens fittings or refittings performed after receiving the survey form. Results: Data were received relating to 16,680 presbyopic (age 45 years or older) and 84,202 pre‐presbyopic (15 to 44 years) contact lens wearers. Females are over‐represented in presbyopic versus pre‐presbyopic groups, possibly reflecting a stronger desire for the cosmetic benefits of contact lenses among older women. The extent to which multifocal and monovision lenses are prescribed for presbyopes varies considerably among nations, ranging from 79 per cent of all soft lenses in Portugal to zero in Singapore. There appears to be significant under‐prescribing of contact lenses for the correction of presbyopia, although for those who do receive such corrections, three times more multifocal lenses are fitted compared with monovision fittings. Presbyopic corrections are most frequently prescribed for full‐time wear and monthly replacement. Conclusions: Despite apparent improvements in multifocal design and an increase in available multifocal options in recent years, practitioners are still under‐prescribing with respect to the provision of appropriate contact lenses for the correction of presbyopia. Training of contact lens practitioners in presbyopic contact lens fitting should be accelerated and clinical and laboratory research in this field should be intensified to enhance the prospects of meeting the needs of presbyopic contact lens wearers more fully.     

Visual performance of subjects wearing presbyopic contact lenses.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess the visual performance of subjects wearing gas-permeable (GP) multifocal contact lenses, soft bifocal contact lenses, GP monovision lenses and spectacles. METHODS: The study included 32 subjects between the ages of 42 and 65 years wearing GP monovision, the Acuvue Bifocal (Vistakon), the Essentials GP Multifocal (Blanchard), and progressive addition lenses (PAL; spectacles group). There were eight subjects in each of these groups who were already wearing these modalities. Binocular low (18%) and high (95%) contrast acuities were recorded using the Bailey-Lovie chart; binocular contrast sensitivity from 1.5 to 18 cycles per degree (cpd) measured with the Vistech VCTS 6500 system, and monocular glare sensitivity at three luminance settings (400, 100, and 12 foot lamberts) was measured using the brightness acuity tester (BAT). Binocular near visual task performance (a modified version of letter counting method used in previous presbyopic studies) was also assessed. RESULTS: For the contact lens-wearing groups, subjects wearing GP multifocals provided the best binocular high and low contrast acuity followed by soft bifocal wearers. There was relative parity between the binocular high and low contrast acuity with PAL and GP multifocal wearers. Monovision acuity, measured binocularly, was determined to be lower than the other three groups with this difference being most significant with high contrast acuity. Among contact lens-wearing groups, it was observed that GP multifocal lens wearers experienced the lowest amount of monocular disability glare followed by soft bifocal wearers and monovision wearers. Subjects wearing soft bifocal lenses and monovision demonstrated slightly reduced binocular contrast sensitivity at all spatial frequencies. In the contact lens groups, GP multifocal lens wearers had the highest binocular contrast sensitivity at all spatial frequencies, on parity with PAL wearers, except at the highest spatial frequency (18 cpd) at which PAL wearers had better vision. Error scores for the binocular near visual task performance between the four groups revealed subjects with GP multifocal lenses and PAL wearers to have the least errors, followed by monovision users and then soft bifocal wearers with the most errors. CONCLUSION: Subjects wearing GP multifocals, soft bifocals, monovision, and PAL spectacles have good binocular contrast sensitivity, satisfactory binocular low and high contrast acuity, and increased sensitivity to glare. Presbyopic subjects requiring the use of contact lenses under dim light levels could benefit from GP multifocal lenses. Contrast and glare sensitivity evaluations provide significant information regarding the visual performance of the presbyopic contact lenses and should be included in regular presbyopic contact lens fitting.     

Factors influencing success of monovision contact lens fitting: survey of contact lens diplomates.

BACKGROUND: Contact lenses are frequently fitted so that one eye is focused for distance and the other for near (monovision) in order to reduce the dependence of presbyopic patients on bifocal spectacle correction. METHODS: We surveyed Diplomates in the Cornea and Contact Lens section of the American Academy of Optometry (N = 179) regarding their estimates of success with monovision fitting and factors influencing their perception of success. Results were statistically analyzed to determine the fitting philosophies of responders estimating that they achieve high success rates (HSRs) and low success rates (LSRs), respectively. RESULTS: Completed surveys were returned by 98 Diplomates (54.8%), who estimated an overall success rate of approximately 71.7% with monovision; 50.5% "totally successful" (wear monovision correction full-time without problems or need for additional correction) and 21.2% "successful" (wear monovision full-time, but experience some symptoms of blur or other discomfort, may wear over-correction at times for driving or detailed near work). Sighting dominance was the most frequently used method to determine the distant eye, followed by the plus-lens test. The HSR group tended to be more likely to take occupational factors into account when deciding which eye to use for the distance lens, and they used more flexibility in determining the near-add power. The LSR group discontinued monovision sooner than the HSR group, who continued treatment for longer than 4 weeks during the adaptation period much more often for all add ranges. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners who regard monovision treatment as very successful have somewhat different fitting philosophies than those who regard monovision as unsuccessful. Implementation of highly successful practitioners' fitting techniques may increase success with monovision contact lens fitting.     

Investigation of the performance of the Menifocal Z gas-permeable bifocal contact lens during continuous wear.

PURPOSE: The Menifocal Z is an alternating vision, concentric, bifocal gas-permeable (GP) contact lens; center distance is connected to near periphery by a smooth transition zone. The lens is produced using tisilfocon A (Menicon Z material), which is approved for up to 30 days of continuous wear (CW). The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of the Menifocal Z when worn for up to 30 days of CW for 6 months. METHODS: Thirty-five existing GP lens wearers were enrolled in the study. Subjects were fitted with Menifocal Z lenses and follow-up visits were conducted after 2 weeks of daily wear and 1 day, 1 week, 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months of CW. A range of objective and subjective clinical performance measures were assessed, including distance and near visual acuity, the physiological response to CW, and subjective evaluation of vision and comfort. RESULTS: Twenty-seven subjects (77%) completed the study and eight (23%) discontinued: five (14%) as a result of lens-related problems (four vision, one comfort) and three (9%) as a result of non-lens related reasons. Average CW time achieved by the subjects was 22 +/- 2 days. Mean binocular logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) acuities at 6 months were: high contrast distance 0.03 (20/20-), low contrast distance 0.63 (20/80-), and high contrast near 0.26 (20/25, N4). Adverse responses and lens binding were minimal, and there were no significant increases in corneal staining, corneal vascularization, or superior palpebral conjunctival papillae over time (p > 0.05). Problems with night vision (distance and near) with the lenses were the most common difficulties reported by the subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The Menifocal Z appears to be a promising option for presbyopic vision correction, providing successful correction of distance and near vision in a group of experienced GP lens wearers. The hyper Dk tisilfocon A (Menicon Z) material allowed for safe wear of the lenses on a CW basis.     

Bifocal hydrogel lenses: an overview

Until the advent of bifocal hydrogel lenses, monovision or reading glasses were the modes of correction for hydrogel contact lens wearing presbyopes. Recent design innovations and improvements in the manufacturing technology of soft contact lenses have made possible new developments in bifocal hydrogel lenses. Patient selection and patient education play key roles in optimizing patient success. There are several hydrogel bifocal designs that are possible for the presbyope. The variations of these designs and their pertinent considerations are discussed.