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.     

Stereoacuity and foveal fusion in adults with long-standing surgical monovision

PURPOSE: Although binocular vision deficits occur in children who have a constant esotropia onset following significant maturation of stereopsis, it is uncertain whether adults are susceptible to changes to binocular vision. We examined binocular vision in adults with longstanding surgical monovision (> or =6 month's duration) to determine whether the binocular visual system remains susceptible to change. METHODS: Participants included 32 adults with longstanding monovision through laser-assisted in situ keratectomy or photorefractive keratectomy and 20 age-matched control subjects. After full binocular correction, binocular function was measured by using the Randot Stereoacuity Test, the Randot Preschool Stereoacuity Test, and the Worth 4-dot test at near and distance. Monovision patients were grouped as having low anisometropia (<1.5 spherical D) or moderate anisometropia (> or =1.5 spherical D). RESULTS: Non-parametric analysis of variance revealed a significant difference between group median stereoacuity (H = 16.062; P <.001). Pairwise multiple comparisons indicated both groups with monovision had significantly worse stereoacuity compared with control subjects (P <.05). Median stereoacuity values were 100 seconds of arc for patients with low anisometropia, 150 seconds of arc for patients with moderate anisometropia, and 40 seconds of arc for control subjects. A larger proportion of patients with moderate anisometropia failed the Worth-4 dot test at distance than control subjects (z = 2.619; P =.009). CONCLUSIONS: Reduced stereoacuity and an absence of foveal fusion in adults with longstanding surgical monovision suggest continued susceptibility of the binocular visual system to anomalous binocular experience.     

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.     

Visual function with presbyopic contact lens correction

All forms of ophthalmic correction for presbyopia require compromises in viewing flexibility and visual function. The unique effects on vision of contact lenses used in managing presbyopia are especially intriguing and potentially problematic. Bifocal contact lenses produce unique changes in the nature and quality of the retinal image. In monovision (MV) correction, anisometropia is intentionally created by fitting one eye to see clearly at optical infinity and the other eye to see clearly at the near working distance. Our review of the literature indicates that most visual functions are affected by these departures from the conventional optical correction strategies used on nonpresbyopes. Sensory functions such as contrast sensitivity and stereoacuity are affected most, whereas motor functions such as convergence and accommodation are not noticeably impaired. MV appears to produce a more widely acceptable visual compromise than currently available bifocal contact lenses for most patients.     

Short term responses to soft contact lens corrections for presbyopia

Eleven subjects were each fitted with five different soft contact lens corrections for presbyopia. The correction types were distance contact lenses with lookover spectacles, concentric bifocals, monovi-sion, modified monovision and progressive bifocal contact lenses. Subjects were asked to rate each contact lens correction in terms of distance, intermediate, near and peripheral vision, confidence when walking and climbing stairs, eye-hand co-ordination, performance on work tasks, vision difficulties in bright and dim ambient illumination and the correction most preferred for daily wear. There were few significant differences between ratings for the different corrections. Monovision, modified monovision and the concentric bifocal corrections were the preferred options for daily wear.     

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.     

Monovision outcomes in presbyopic individuals after refractive surgery

PURPOSE: To characterize monovision outcomes and patient satisfaction with conventional monovision (dominant eye corrected for distance) and crossed monovision (dominant eye corrected for near) in presbyopic individuals after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred forty-four consecutive patients, 45 years or older, who were treated with excimer laser refractive surgery between December 1995 and June 1998. METHODS: Patients in whom the surgical outcome was monovision (MV) (distance vision spherical equivalent [SE] -0.50 to +0.50 diopter (D), near vision SE -3.75 to -1.00 D and anisometropia 1.00 D or greater), crossed MV (dominant eye corrected for near vision and the nondominant eye for distance vision) and full correction (bilateral SE -0.50 to +0.50) were identified. Data were abstracted and analyzed statistically. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative and postoperative visual acuity and refraction. Patient satisfaction with monovision RESULTS: Forty-two patients had surgical outcome of MV. In MV patients, the average distance vision SE, near vision SE, and anisometropia were -0.04 +/- 0.27 D, -1.95 +/- 0.70 D, and 1.92 +/- 0.74 D, respectively. Patient satisfaction was 88% with MV. Twelve patients attained crossed MV. All patients with crossed MV were satisfied with their vision. Patient satisfaction with MV showed no relationship to gender, age at initial surgery, preoperative trial of monovision, laterality of treatment, type of monovision, or predictability of outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Monovision may be a valuable option for presbyopic individuals considering refractive surgery. Crossed monovision can result in satisfactory visual outcomes.     

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.     

Monovision contact lens wear and occupational task performance

The effects of monovision (MV) contact lens wear on the performance of occupational-type nearpoint tasks was evaluated on 18 presbyopic subjects (ages 44 to 67 years) by comparing MV performance (MV condition) to that with distance contact lenses with reading glasses (BV condition). Each subject had correctable distance visual acuity of 6/6 (20/20) in each eye, at least 60 sec arc of near stereopsis, good ocular health, and no previous MV experience. Time performance and error performance for 3 nearpoint occupational tasks (pointers and straws, card filing, and letter editing) were measured with the MV correction and BV correction. Measurements were taken at dispensing and at 2 weeks and 8 weeks after dispensing. Subjects were instructed to wear the MV soft spherical contact lenses at least 8 h per day. We measured BV time performance to be better than MV time performance by 2.8 to 5.7% and also measured an increased number of errors with MV.     

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.     

Evaluation of “high-cylinder” toric soft contact lenses

The purpose of this study was to evaluate lens performance, vision, and initial clinical success achievable with custom toric soft contact lenses fitted to patients with high amounts of astigmatism. Eleven subjects were fitted with high-water-content custom toric soft lenses for daily wear. Assessment/measurements of the lens-mark position on the eye, lens movement, visual acuity, wearing time, eye response to lens wear, and subjective evaluation of visual quality and stability were performed during the initial wearing/adaptation period. Nine subjects having an average of 3.16 D of astigmatism successfully wore the lenses on a full-time basis for 2 weeks of daily wear. The data indicated good visual acuity, but with great variability in subjective ratings of stability and quality of vision. Alignment of lenses on the eye was very good, ocular response was unremarkable, and seven of nine (78%) of the subjects elected to continue with lens wear after the initial 2 weeks of wear. The results suggest that high-cylinder toric hydrogels can provide reasonable vision and patient acceptance even while stability and overall quality of vision may be a challenge. Toric soft lenses in higher cylinder amounts, such as those utilized in this study, may be considered a reasonable vision correction option and one that can be provided in a straightforward and predictably successful manner in most cases.     

Monovision: the patient's perspective

We surveyed a group of 60 presbyopic subjects following eight weeks of monovision contact lens wear. The questions focussed on satisfaction with various aspects of visual performance, performance when driving, and general questions related to contact lens wear such as lens handling, care and maintenance and lens comfort. The subjects reported relatively high levels of satisfaction with visual performance, except in low light levels. Driving with monovision was also considered to be significantly worse at night than during daylight. Relatively few of the subjects had difficulties with lens handling, care and maintenance or lens comfort.     

Vision and task performance with monovision and diffractive bifocal contact lenses.

We measured vision and task performance on 26 presbyopes, ages 46 to 65 years, fitted with diffractive bifocal contact lenses (BFCL) and monovision contact lenses (MVCL). Distance contact lenses combined with reading spectacles (DCL) served as the control condition. Twenty subjects completed the 6-week study. All subjects wore BFCL and MVCL daily for a period of 3 weeks each. Performance times for three near tasks were 6 to 8% longer with BFCL compared with DCL and 2 to 6% longer for MVCL compared with DCL. There were significant reductions in distance visual acuity with BFCL (0.4 to 1.5 Snellen lines) and MVCL (0.5 to 0.8 Snellen lines) compared to DCL. At the conclusion of the study, given a choice between BFCL and MVCL, 2 of the 20 subjects chose to continue wearing BFCL, whereas 18 of the 20 subjects chose MVCL. Our results show greater visual compromise and decreased task performance with BFCL and MVCL compared to DCL and greater patient preference for MVCL.     

Prevalence of paradoxical anisometropia

A sample population of patients with a certain degree of antimetropia or mixed anisometropia was selected. Binocular interference or paradoxical dominance was expected in some of them. This interference is such that the "seemingly worse eye" (the eye with the lesser visual acuity) dominates the binocular vision and leads the subject to wear corrective glasses or contact lenses even though the level of visual acuity in the other eye is adequate without correction. This is what we called paradoxical anisometropia. There was no amblyopia or strabismus present. Twenty percent of our subjects manifested some degree of binocular interference.     

Contact lens fitting after photorefractive keratectomy.

AIMS/BACKGROUND: This study evaluated contact lens fitting and the longer term response of the photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) cornea to lens wear. In PRK for myopia problems such as regression, anterior stromal haze, irregular astigmatism, halo aberration, and anisometropia have been reported. Certain patients therefore require contact lens correction to obtain best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). METHOD: From an original cohort of 80 patients, 15 were dissatisfied with their visual outcome 6 months after PRK. Ten of these were fitted with lenses and monitored regularly. RESULTS: The best fit rigid gas permeable lens of diameter 9.20-10.00 mm was generally 0.10 mm steeper than mean keratometry readings. Because of lid discomfort five patients were refitted with daily wear soft lenses. All 10 achieved satisfactory lens wear of 10 hours per day. Central corneal steepening of 0.75 D (0.15 mm) occurred in one patient. Two patients had slight central corneal flattening. Three patients discontinued lens wear as they found lens care a nuisance. Four finally opted for retreatment by PRK. CONCLUSIONS: In most cases, contact lenses gave good visual acuity and, in cases of mild irregular astigmatism, a significant improvement over spectacle BCVA. No significant adverse reaction to contact lens wear was found. Although ocular tolerance of lenses was satisfactory, several patients discontinued lens wear or sought improved unaided vision.     

The influence of ocular dominance on monovision--the influence of strength of ocular dominance on visual functions

PURPOSE: Monovision is a method of correction for presbyopia. We have reported the advantage of conventional monovision (the dominant eye is corrected for distance). In this study, we investigated the influence of interocular imbalance of dominancy on the visual function. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ten healthy subjects without any ophthalmologic disease participated. After cycloplegia, the eyes of the subjects were corrected by soft contact lenses with an artificial pupil (diameter: 3.0mm). The dominant eye was corrected for distance, and the difference in lens power between the lenses was 2.5 D. The subjects were classified into two groups by strength of the imbalance of sensory dominance, which was determined by using binocular rivalry. Binocular visual functions (visual acuity at various distances, contrast sensitivity, near stereoacuity) were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Subjects with strong imbalance of sensory dominance showed decreased near visual acuity as well as decreased binocular summation of contrast sensitivity at low spatial frequencies. On the other hand, near stereoacuity was not affected by the imbalance of sensory dominance. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that strong imbalance of sensory dominance interferes with binocular visual functions in monovision. Thus, the evaluation of ocular dominance is crucial for clinical applications of monovision.     

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.     

The influence of ocular dominance on monovision--the interaction between binocular visual functions and the state of dominant eye's correction

PURPOSE: To examine the interaction between binocular visual functions and the correction of the dominant eye, i.e., for far vs. near vision in monovision. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ten healthy subjects without any ophthalmological disease were examined. After cycloplegia, the eyes of the subjects were corrected by soft contact lenses (difference in lens power between the lenses: 2.5 D) with an artificial pupil(diameter: 3.0 mm). Visual acuity at various distances, contrast sensitivity, and near stereoacuity were measured while the dominant eye determined by the hole-in-card test (sighting dominance) was corrected for far and near vision. RESULTS: Binocular visual acuity was better than 1.0(20/20) at all distances. When the dominant eye was corrected for distance, the binocular visual acuity at 0.7 m was better than the monocular visual acuity; contrast sensitivity was better within the spatial frequency range of 0.5-4.0 cycles per degree, and near stereoacuity by Titmus stereo tests improved. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that dominant eyes should be corrected for far vision for better binocular summation at middle distances, and near stereoacuity.     

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.