Evaluation of two new soft contact lenses for correction of presbyopia: the Focus Progressives multifocal and the Acuvue Bifocal

The clinical performance of Focus Progressives multifocal contact lenses and Acuvue Bifocal contact lenses was evaluated in a group of 42 presbyopes, with equal numbers of individuals having low, medium, and high spectacle add requirements. Following visual performance assessment with an optimal sphero-cylinder spectacle refractive correction, each individual wore each of the two types of contact lenses in successive random order. Each type of lens was used in a daily-wear mode for a period of 7 to 12 days, with follow-up and/or refitting visits occurring after 2 to 5 days, and again after 4 to 7 days of attempted wear. Testing for all three forms of refractive correction encompassed Snellen acuities at distance and near, Bailey-Lovie acuities under high and/or low ambient illumination conditions at near, intermediate, and far viewing distances, stereoacuity, a timed visuomotor task (needle threading), apparent glare/flare, and the nearwork range of subjectively clear binocular vision. The contact lenses also were evaluated for handling, comfort, distance and near ghosting, subjective visual quality, acceptability for common tasks (e.g., using a phone directory), and personal preferences.As might be expected, distance and near acuity, stereoacuity, and visuomotor task performance were somewhat better with sphero-cylinder spectacle correction than with either of the two types of contact lenses. However, several performance differences between the multifocal and bifocal lenses were noted. The Focus Progressives lenses provided significantly better distance acuity under both high and low illumination conditions, and received significantly higher ratings for visual quality (overall and at distance), comfort, and handling. The Focus Progressives lenses were preferred 5:1 over the Acuvue Bifocal lenses. No differences existed between the lenses with respect to near visual acuities, the perceived quality of the near vision, the nearpoint binocular range, stereoacuity, or the acceptability of vision for common nearwork tasks. The results suggest that although both types of lenses afford presbyopes a viable alternative to spectacles, the Focus Progressives lens is superior in many ways to the Acuvue Bifocal lens.     

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.     

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.     

Comparative efficacy of penalization methods in moderate to mild amblyopia

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and sensory outcome of pharmacologic and optical penalization in the treatment of moderate to mild amblyopia. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. METHODS: In an institutional setting, two- to 10-year-old children with strabismic or anisometropic amblyopia (visual acuity in the amblyopic eye at least 20/60) who were cooperative to measure visual acuity using the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) crowded Glasgow acuity cards were randomized into two groups of therapy (n=35 in each group), 1% atropine, and optical penalization with positive lenses, after stratification by cause of amblyopia. Visual acuity was tested by the logMAR crowded Glasgow acuity cards, after retinoscopic refraction, and deviation angle were measured by the simultaneous prism and cover or Krimsky test. Stereoacuity was determined using the Titmus fly test and Randot preschool or Randot circles stereoacuity test. Change in visual acuity of the amblyopic eye and in interocular difference of visual acuity after six months of amblyopia therapy was the main outcome measure; stereoacuity at six months of therapy was a secondary outcome measure. RESULTS: Thirty-one and 32 children completed the outcome examination in the atropine and optical penalization group, respectively. Average improvement in visual acuity of the amblyopic eye was larger in the atropine than in the optical penalization group (3.4 and 1.8 logMAR lines, respectively), as well as average improvement in interocular difference of visual acuity (2.8 and 1.3 logMAR lines, respectively). Better stereoacuity, but nonsignificantly different, was detected in the atropine group. CONCLUSIONS: Atropine penalization may be considered more effective than optical penalization with positive lenses.     

Bifocal contact lenses as a correction method in presbyopia

A study aimed at assessing the efficiency of presbyopia correction by bifocal contact lenses (BCL) was undertaken; it envisaged a comprehensive evaluation of subjective data provided by patients and measurements of a number of functional parameters of the visual quality for far and near, including mono- and binocular measurements with BCL of different constructions versus a maximal sphero-cylindrical spectacle correction for far and for near. Soft Acuvue Bifocal BCL as well as soft and rigid BCL manufactured in the optical-and-mechanical laboratory of the Research Institute for Eye Disease of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences and Russian-made and imported bifocal soft and rigid lenses, respectively, were made use of in the study. A reduced contrast sensitivity (mainly in high frequencies) to 7% with Russian-made BCL, to 12.5% with Acuvue Bifocal BCL, to 8.7% with monofocal BCL and to 13.4% with the "mono-vision" system was registered. A decreased visual working ability to 13% with soft bifocal Russian-made BCL, to 17.3% with Acuvue Bifocal BCL and to 20.7% with the "mono-vision" system was detected versus the spectacle correction. A reduction by 25% was noted in the stereoscopic vision indices with the "mono-vision" system. A study of sensitivity to dazzling did not show any statistically reliable differences between various correction types.     

Predicting and assessing visual performance with multizone bifocal contact lenses.

PURPOSE: To investigate how bifocal contact lenses, when combined with the aberrations of the eye, will affect visual performance. Also, to investigate the relationship between the patient's predicted and actual visual benefit with bifocal contact lenses. METHODS: The monochromatic aberrations of 16 subjects were measured and used to simulate visual quality with three bifocal contact lens designs. Actual and computed visual benefit was compared for an Acuvue bifocal contact lens in 5 of the 16 subjects. RESULTS: Subjects were predicted to have either a bifocal response or an increase in depth of focus for all lens designs. Our subjects were predicted to have a decrease in visual benefit for distance viewing and a gain in visual benefit at near compared with not wearing a contact lens. We found a statistically significant association between our subjects' predicted and actual visual benefit with the Acuvue Bifocal contact lens (r = 0.685, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Bifocal contact lens designs, when combined with the aberrations of the eye, will not always provide bifocal vision. Visual quality with a bifocal contact lens can be predicted based on a patient's ocular aberrations.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Prospective clinical evaluation of the Acuvue Bifocal contact lens.

PURPOSE: We conducted a 15-month prospective clinical studyto evaluate the performance of the Acuvue Bifocal contact lens and to determine the objective and subjective factors that influence patient success rates in a general presbyopic population presenting to a contact lens specialist's office. METHODS: The first 100 patients who were initially fit and dispensed the Acuvue Bifocal contact lens are included in this study data. At each follow-up visit, visual acuity, slit lamp evaluation of lens/cornea relationship, and any change in ocular surface characteristics were noted. The study population was a general population with an interest in wearing disposable multifocal contact lenses. Success was defined as the patient actually purchasing the lens for continual wear. RESULTS: The overall success rate with the lens in this diverse study group was 53%. The majority of the successful patients achieved 20/25 or better distance and near acuity with the Acuvue Bifocal. None of the study participants had any adverse effect of lens wear or changes in keratometry or ocular surface characteristics. Of the successful patients, 57% wore the lens in a binocular fashion, while the remainder used some form of monovision. Virtually all patients rated lens comfort as excellent or very good, with the major factor in success or failure being visual performance. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study in an average group of presbyopic contact lens or spectacle wearers yielded valuable insights into the performance of a disposable multifocal contact lens in a general contact lens practice. The Acuvue Bifocal should prove to be a valuable addition to the contact lens fitter's practice.     

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.     

Contrast Sensitivity and Stereoacuity in Successfully Treated Refractive Amblyopia

PurposeTo assess whether monocular contrast sensitivity and stereoacuity impairments remain when visual acuity is fully recovered in children with refractive amblyopia.MethodsA retrospective review of 487 patients diagnosed with refractive amblyopia whose visual acuity improved to 0.08 logMAR or better in both eyes following optical treatment was conducted. Measurements of monocular contrast sensitivity and stereoacuity had been made when visual acuity normalized. All patients had been treated with refractive correction for approximately 2 years following diagnosis. No other treatments were provided. Monocular contrast sensitivity was measured using the CSV-1000E chart for children 6 years of age or younger and a psychophysical technique called the quick contrast sensitivity function in older children. Stereoacuity was measured using the Random Dot Test that includes monocular cues and the Randot Stereoacuity Test that does not have monocular cues.ResultsStatistically significant interocular differences in contrast sensitivity were observed. These differences tended to occur at higher spatial frequencies (12 and 18 cycles per degree). Stereoacuity within the age-specific normal range was achieved by 47.4% of patients for the Random Dot Test and only 23.1% of patients for the Randot Stereoacuity Test.ConclusionsFull recovery of visual acuity following treatment for refractive amblyopia does not equalize interocular contrast sensitivity or restore normal stereopsis. Alternative therapeutic approaches that target contrast sensitivity and/or binocular vision are required.     

The effect of add power on distance vision with the acuvue bifocal contact lens.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine if subjective evaluation of quality of distance vision with the Acuvue Bifocal contact lens could be correlated with high- and low-contrast acuity scores. METHODS: LogMAR visual acuities of 20 non-presbyopic subjects were measured using high and low-contrast Bailey-Lovie charts. Each subject wore an Acuvue Bifocal contact lens with add powers +1.00, +1.50, +2.00, and +2.50, each optimized for best distance acuity. RESULTS: Subjects showed significantly decreased acuities with increasing add; a low-contrast target heightened this effect. Subjects reported a reduction in quality of distance vision, increasing fluctuation, ghosting/shadows, and halos around lights that correlated with increasing add power. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the Acuvue Bifocal contact lens may be expected to perform best for presbyopes with low-to-moderate bifocal add requirement, and that clinicians should anticipate decreased low-contrast acuity and reduced overall quality of vision as add powers are increased.     

Soft bifocal contact lenses for patients with nearpoint asthenopia

Bifocal contact lenses have generally been considered solely for the presbyopic population. However, pre-presbyopic individuals with accommodative or vergence disorders who respond favorably to plus lenses at near may be good candidates for bifocal contact lenses. A group of ten non-presbyopic patients who manifest accommodative dysfunctions or near point esophoria were fit with the Ciba BI-SOFT contact lenses. Nearpoint accommodative and vergence findings were evaluated through both near point plus spectacle lenses and the bifocal soft lenses. Results indicate that the BI-SOFT bifocal contact lens was effective in changing the near point visual posture. However, poor distance vision acuity due to ghost images reduced the subjective success rate of the BI-SOFT lens on this non-presbyopic population.     

Measuring colour rivalry suppression in amblyopia

AIMS: To determine if the colour rivalry suppression is an index of the visual impairment in amblyopia and if the stereopsis and fusion evaluator (SAFE) instrument is a reliable indicator of the difference in visual input from the two eyes. METHODS: To test the accuracy of the SAFE instrument for measuring the visual input from the two eyes, colour rivalry suppression was measured in six normal subjects. A test neutral density filter (NDF) was placed before one eye to induce a temporary relative afferent defect and the subject selected the NDF before the fellow eye to neutralise the test NDF. In a non-paediatric private practice, 24 consecutive patients diagnosed with unilateral amblyopia were tested with the SAFE. Of the 24 amblyopes, 14 qualified for the study because they were able to fuse images and had no comorbid disease. The relation between depth of colour rivalry suppression, stereoacuity, and interocular difference in logMAR acuity was analysed. RESULTS: In normal subjects, the SAFE instrument reversed temporary defects of 0.3 to 1. 8 log units to within 0.6 log units. In amblyopes, the NDF to reverse colour rivalry suppression was positively related to interocular difference in logMAR acuity (beta=1.21, p<0.0001), and negatively related to stereoacuity (beta=-0.16, p=0.019). The interocular difference in logMAR acuity was negatively related to stereoacuity (beta=-0.13, p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Colour rivalry suppression as measured with the SAFE was found to agree closely with the degree of visual acuity impairment in non-paediatric patients with amblyopia.     

Monovision for treatment of accommodative esotropia with a high AC/A ratio.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether monovision will successfully reduce the near esodeviation in patients with high AC/A ratio accommodative esotropia. METHODS: The records of all patients who wore monovision contact lenses for at least 3 months were retrospectively reviewed to determine baseline patient characteristics, long-term motor alignment, sensory status, and patient convenience. RESULTS:TEN patients 10 to 28 years of age wore monovision contact lenses for a mean of 28.7 months to date. All patients maintained an esodeviation of < or = 10 prism diopters at distance and near, except 1 patient whose near esodeviation increased over time. Of the 5 patients for whom data were available, 1 experienced a significant decrease in stereoacuity. No patients discontinued monovision because of visual symptoms; however, 1 did so because of the inconvenience of contact lens care. No serious ocular side effects from contact lens wear were noted in the study. CONCLUSION: Use of monovision contact lenses is a safe and effective method of reducing near-angle esodeviation associated with nonrefractive high AC/A ratio accommodative esotropia. Many patients are willing to accept the visual compromises inherent in monovision to eliminate wearing bifocal spectacles.     

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.     

Visual performance of two simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses

Purpose

To evaluate and compare the visual performance of two simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses (CLs).

Methods

In this cross‐over study design 20 presbyopic subjects were fitted with two different simultaneous vision multifocal CLs (the PureVision Multifocal Low Add and Acuvue Oasys for Presbyopia) in random order. After 1 month, binocular distance visual acuity (BDVA) under photopic (85 cd/m²) and mesopic (3 cd/m²) conditions, binocular near visual acuity (BNVA), binocular distance contrast sensitivity function (CSF) under photopic and mesopic conditions, binocular near CSF and defocus curve were measured. Subjects were then refitted with the alternative correction and the procedure was repeated.

Results

Mean BDVA under photopic conditions was similar for the Acuvue Oasys for Presbyopia and PureVision Multifocal Low Add: 0.01 ± 0.08 and 0.00 ± 0.08 logMAR, respectively (P = 0.45). Under mesopic conditions the values of BDVA were 0.20 ± 0.58 and 0.11 ± 0.09 logMAR, respectively (P = 0.005). Mean BNVA was 0.20 ± 0.05 and 0.15 ± 0.08 logMAR for the Acuvue Oasys and PureVision Low Add, respectively (P = 0.06). Binocular distance CSF testing revealed no statistically significant differences between lenses under photopic, mesopic or near conditions. Both lenses provided a comparable intermediate visual acuity.

Conclusions

Both simultaneous vision multifocal CLs provided adequate distance visual quality under photopic and mesopic conditions, and better visual acuity was provided under mesopic conditions for the Purevision lens. Both lenses provided adequate visual performance at intermediate distance, but the near visual acuity appears to be insufficient for early presbyopes who require a moderately demanding near visual quality.