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.     

Comparison of high-order optical aberrations induced by different multifocal contact lens geometries

PURPOSE: To analyze the effects of different multifocal soft contact lens geometries on high-order ocular optical aberrations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty nonpresbyopic eyes were fitted with eight multifocal contact lenses: Soflens Multifocal High, Soflens Multifocal Low, Focus progressive, Acuvue Bifocal Add +2.00, Rythmic Multifocal Profile 1, Rythmic Multifocal Profile 2, Proclear D Add 2.00, Proclear N Add 2.00. All these contact lenses corrected the ametropia for far distance. The ocular aberrations were measured with and without each contact lens using a Hartmann-Shack aberrometer, (Zywave from Bausch and Lomb) successively after pupil dilation with one or two drops of Neo-Synephrine and wavefront decomposition in Zernike polynomials up to the 5th order. RESULTS: Odd and even aberrations increased for all the tested multifocal soft contact lenses. The most significant increase was noted for the a(4.0) Zernike coefficient. The mean value of a(4.0) without contact lens was -0.178+/-0.121 microm. The contact lenses having a central zone for near addition cause the inversion of the sign of the a(40) coefficient The central far vision contact lens leads to the opposite effect, increasing spherical positive aberrations. The most significant increase in total high-order ocular aberrations were noted for Proclear D soft contact lenses (0.396+/-0.109 microm without contact lens, 0.511+/-0.123 microm with contact lens; p<0.05, +29%), for Proclear N soft contact lenses (0.396+/-0.109 microm without contact lens, 0.568+/-0.165 microm with contact lens; p<0.05 +43%) and for Acuvue Bifocal soft contact lens (0.396+/-0.109 microm without contact lens, 0.567+/-0.162 microm with contact lens; p<0.05 +43%). CONCLUSION: Wearing multifocal contact lenses induces an increase in high-order ocular aberrations. The location of the near addition zone is related to the sign of the variation of the a(4.0) coefficient. The central near vision multifocal contact lenses seem to induce large amounts of negative spherical aberrations. The far vision contact lenses seem to induce an increase in positive spherical aberrations. The relative decentration of the lens to the pupil may explain the increase in odd high-order aberrations. These results might be useful to understand the visual complaints of patients fitted with multifocal contact lenses.     

Comparison of suppression, stereoacuity, and interocular differences in visual acuity in monovision and acuvue bifocal contact lenses.

PURPOSE: The relationship between visual acuity and stereoacuity has been well documented: as binocular visual acuity increases, stereoacuity improves. We compared interocular differences in visual acuity and stereoacuity in two presbyopic soft contact lens modalities, monovision and a new soft bifocal contact lens, the Acuvue Bifocal. The Acuvue Bifocal is hypothesized to show a smaller interocular acuity difference, increased stereoacuity, and decreased suppression over monovision at distance and near. METHODS: Monovision patients wearing Acuvue or Surevue soft contact lenses were tested for visual acuity, stereoacuity, and suppression at distance and near. Stereoacuity was tested with the Randot Stereotest (near) and the BVAT (distance). Suppression was evaluated with the Acuity Suppression Vectogram (near) and the BVAT (distance). Patients were then fit with the Acuvue Bifocal in each eye. After wearing the lenses for 1 week, the same tests of visual acuity, stereoacuity, and suppression were performed. RESULTS: The mean interocular acuity difference (IAD) at distance with monovision was 0.712 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (SD = 0.275) and 0.188 logMAR (SD = 0.252) (p < 0.001) with the Acuvue Bifocal. At near, the mean IAD with monovision was 0.420 logMAR (SD = 0.183) and 0.137 logMAR (SD = 0.147) (p < 0.001) with the Acuvue Bifocal. Of the monovision subjects, 89% (17 of 19) demonstrated suppression at near while only 26% (5 of 19) did with the bifocal lenses (statistically significant at p < 0.001). Stereoacuity at near improved from a median of 200 sec arc with monovision to 50 sec arc with the bifocal lenses. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, correcting presbyopia with the Acuvue Bifocal versus monovision resulted in a statistically significant decrease in the interocular difference in visual acuity at distance and near. The decreased interocular difference in visual acuity improved certain aspects of binocularity as demonstrated by a decrease in suppression and an increase in stereoacuity.     

Inefficacy of aspheric soft contact lenses for the correction of low levels of astigmatism.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to compare the visual performance of a toric soft (TS) contact lens (SofLens 66 Toric; Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY), an aspheric soft (AS) contact lens (Frequency Aspheric; CooperVision, Fairport, NY) and a spectacle correction (SC) in subjects with low levels of astigmatism. METHODS: One eye of 30 subjects with refractive astigmatism of -0.75 DC or -1.00 DC was tested. After pupil dilation, each subject was fitted with all three forms of correction in random order. Subjects were masked from the contact lens type. High-contrast visual acuity (HCVA) and low-contrast visual acuity (LCVA) were recorded for each correction using 2-mm, 4-mm, and 6-mm artificial pupils. RESULTS: With a 2-mm pupil, HCVA was similar for the TS lens and the SC (p = 0.13); better HCVA was demonstrated with the TS lens than with the AS lens (p = 0.001). With 4-mm and 6-mm pupils, HCVA was poorer with the AS lens than with the SC (p < 0.002) and TS lenses (p < 0.0001). The difference in HCVA between the TS and AS lenses was two letters, three letters, and one line with pupil sizes of 2 mm, 4 mm, and 6 mm, respectively. LCVA was similar for the three refractive conditions with the 2-mm pupil size. With 4-mm and 6-mm pupils, LCVA was similar for the TS lens and SC, but better than the AS lens by approximately one line in each case (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: For small pupil sizes, there is little difference in HCVA and LCVA between various refractive corrections. However, for larger pupils, HCVA and LCVA are superior with TS contact lenses and SC versus AS contact lenses by approximately a half-line or more, which is considered to be clinically significant. Superior vision can be achieved for low astigmatic contact lens wearers using TS rather than AS contact lenses.     

Stereoacuity with balanced presbyopic contact lenses

Background: To evaluate near stereoacuity with the balanced Proclear Multifocal simultaneous vision contact lens. Methods: Twenty‐five presbyopic subjects were fitted binocularly with the Proclear Multifocal contact lens and with distance contact lenses combined with reading spectacles, which served as controls. After one month, stereoacuity was measured using the vectographic Titmus and Random dot stereotests and the Howard‐Dolman (HD) apparatus under photopic conditions (85 cd/m²) at 40 cm. Binocular high‐contrast visual acuities (BHCVA) at distance and near were examined. Results: For the multifocal group, mean stereoacuity with the Howard‐Dolman method was 22.40 ± 8.23 seconds of arc. Using the Titmus and the Random dot sterereotests, the values were 56.40 ± 18.00 and 54.80 ± 20.23 seconds of arc, respectively. For the SCL group, mean stereoacuities were 19.9 ± 4.6, 51.2 ± 16.4 and 51.2 ± 20.88 seconds of arc, with the Howard‐Dolman, Titmus and the Random dot, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences among groups for Howard‐Dolman (p = 0.07), Titmus (p = 0.10) and Random dot (p = 0.17) stereotests. No statistically significant differences were found between the Titmus and the Random dot stereotest values (multifocal group: p = 0.30 and SCL group: p = 0.50), however, these values differ significantly from those found using the Howard‐Dolman method for both groups (p < 0.001). For the multifocal group, BHCVA was ?0.007 ± 0.060 and 0.012 ± 0.063 logMAR for distance and near vision, respectively. For the SCL group, these values were ?0.02 ± 0.05 and ?0.01 ± 0.06 logMAR, for distance and near vision, respectively. Comparing both groups there were no statistically significant differences between groups for either distance (p = 0.08) or near (p = 0.09). Conclusions: The Proclear Multifocal contact lens provided good distance and near visual acuity preserving stereopsis. Multifocal optics with one lens biased to distance viewing and the other lens biased toward near viewing minimally affects stereoacuity.     

A clinical evaluation of two multifocal soft contact lenses.

We fit two multifocal soft contact lenses, Bausch & Lomb's Bi-Tech and the Unilens contact lens from Unilens Corporation, in two separate populations of presbyopes. Most patients (24/42, 57%) had no prior contact lens experience. Patients were evaluated at 6 and 12 months for comfort, visual acuity, lens fit, and corneal findings. Both distance and near vision were found to be slightly decreased with each contact lens when compared to best corrected visual acuity with spectacles. Seventy-seven percent (14/18) of the Unilens wearers and 67% (16/24) of the Bi-Tech wearers continued to wear their lenses for at least 1 year. Those who discontinued lens wear did so because they were dissatisfied with their vision. Presbyopes who seek correction with soft contact lenses appear to be more tolerant of a decrease in distance vision than a decrease in near vision. Both lenses were comfortable and no corneal pathology was induced. Our results suggest that the Unilens (simultaneous vision design) provides more predictable correction of presbyopic symptoms than the Bi-Tech (alternating vision design) because it is independent of lower lid position and translation. Both of these lenses are viable options for the correction of presbyopic symptoms.     

Visual acuity in contact lens wearers.

PURPOSE: The difference between high- and low-contrast visual acuity provides a sensitive indicator of vision loss in ocular disease; however, the effect of refractive error correction on this difference is still debated. METHODS: High- and low-contrast visual acuity was measured in 116 rigid gas permeable contact lens wearers, 51 spectacle wearers, and 50 soft contact lens wearers with habitual and best correction. Twenty-nine of the soft contact lens wearers reported that they wore disposable contact lenses (discarded on a monthly or more frequent basis), whereas the other 21 soft contact lens wearers wore traditional soft contact lenses. RESULTS: Rigid gas permeable contact lens wearers had statistically worse high-contrast habitual visual acuity than spectacle wearers (Tukey-Kramer, p = 0.0075). Traditional soft contact lens wearers had significantly worse low-contrast visual acuity compared with all other groups (Tukey-Kramer, p < 0.02 for each comparison). Traditional soft contact lens wearers had a significantly larger difference between high- and low-contrast visual acuity with best correction compared with rigid gas permeable wearers (Tukey-Kramer, p = 0.0099). CONCLUSIONS: Rigid gas permeable contact lens wearers had statistically worse habitual high-contrast visual acuity compared with spectacle wearers, but no difference was present under best-corrected conditions. We hypothesize that rigid gas permeable contact lens wearers were not wearing their optimal correction habitually. Traditional soft contact lens wearers had significantly worse low-contrast visual acuity. They also had a larger difference between their best-corrected high- and low-contrast visual acuity scores compared with rigid gas permeable contact lens wearers.     

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.     

Factors influencing success and failure in monovision

This study compared the visual performance of 70 successful and 18 failed monovision (MV) wearers, measured before contact lens dispensing. Compared with successful MV wearers, the failed group showed greater levels of ghosting at distance and near, lost more stereoacuity at 6 m, and lost slightly more near visual acuity. The failed MV group was also older on average than the successful group. Both groups showed worse visual acuity at distance and near with MV than at spectacle baseline, as well as worse stereoacuity at 6 m and 40 cm. Discriminant analysis indicated that distance ghosting, distance stereoacuity, and age were predictive of both success and failure (78% sensitivity; 82% specificity). An investigation, before lens fitting, of other effects of monocular blur on binocular function, as well as an assessment of personal characteristics such as motivation and the nature of visual demands, may further improve the accuracy of prediction of patient success with MV found in this study.     

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.     

Monovision: a review

In presbyopia, patients can no longer obtain clear vision at distance and near. Monovision is a method of correcting presbyopia where one eye is focussed for distance vision and the other for near. Monovision is a fairly common method of correcting presbyopia with contact lenses and has received renewed interest with the increase in refractive surgery. The present paper is a review of the literature on monovision. The success rate of monovision in adapted contact lens wearers is 59-67%. The main limitations are problems with suppressing the blurred image when driving at night and the need for a third focal length, for example with computer screens at intermediate distances. Stereopsis is impaired in monovision, but most patients do not seem to notice this. These limitations highlight the need to take account of occupational factors. Monovision could cause a binocular vision anomaly to decompensate, so the pre-fitting screening should include an assessment of orthoptic function. Various methods have been used to determine which eye should be given the distance vision contact lens and the literature on tests of ocular dominance is reviewed. It is concluded that tests of blur suppression are most likely to be relevant, but that ocular dominance is not fixed but is rather a fluid, adaptive, phenomenon in most patients. Suitable patients can often be given trial lenses that allow them to experiment with monovision in real world situations and this can be a useful way of revealing the preferred eye for each distance. Of course, no patient should drive or operate machinery until successfully adapted to monovision. Surgically induced monovision is less easily reversed than contact lens-induced monovision, and is only appropriate after a successful trial of monovision with contact lenses.     

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 Quest for Spectacle Independence: A Comparison of Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implants and Pseudophakic Monovision for Patients with Presbyopia

ABSTRACT

We performed a literature review comparing multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation with pseudophakic monovision to treat presbyopia. Multifocal IOLs utilize refractive or diffractive principles to treat both distance and near vision, with a single lens implant. Monovision uses traditional monofocal lens implants to treat the dominant eye for emmotropia, and the non-dominant eye for myopia. This planned anisometropia is designed to enhance intermediate or near vision. Generally, distance vision was similar with both types of lens implantation, near vision was better with multifocal IOLs, and intermediate vision appeared to be better in the monovision group. For patients requiring cataract surgery, both multifocal IOLs and monovision appear to address presbyopia with a high level of patient satisfaction. More patients reported complete spectacle independence with multifocal IOLs, but more glare and halos were reported by multifocal IOL patients as well.     

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.     

Clinical evaluation of fitting presbyopic patients with contact lenses.

This clinical investigation was performed to determine the success of using a system designed as a flow chart to fit presbyopic patients with contact lenses. The value of this type of system is to provide practitioners with a simple step-by-step approach to fitting presbyopic patients and reducing the costs of several trial fitting sets. Patients were fit with monovision, simultaneous vision bifocal, alternating vision bifocal or diffractive bifocal contact lenses. The patients were fit first with monovision, and, if unsuccessful with this or any of the above lens designs, they proceeded to the next stage. Stage 2 used the simultaneous lens design, Stage 3 the alternating lens design and Stage 4 the diffractive lens design. Of the 22 patients enrolled in the study, 17 (77.3 percent) were successful through Stage 3 and 18 (81.8 percent) were successful through Stage 4. The first three stages are those proposed by Bausch & Lomb as the Presbyopic Fitting System. The Presbyopic Fitting System was found to be simple to follow and successful in fitting presbyopic patients.     

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.     

A clinical comparison of the Johnson & Johnson Acuvue,the Barnes-Hind Calendar and the Bausch & Lomb Medalist disposable contact lenses

We compared the clinical performacne of three brands of disposable contact lenses availble in Australia by refitting 82 Johnson & Johnson Acuvue wearers with either Barnes-Hind Calendar or Bausch & Lomb Medalist lenses. Subjective lens assessments were analysed with regard to patient factors. Many of these factors wer not significant for predicting the success of a lens but overall lens preference and preference on the basis of comfort, handling and quality of vision were predictable from a history of keratitis, wearing mode or lens power. However, High individual variations did occur. Fitting success is imporved by following some simple guidelines but is maximised obly by trialing more than one lens type.     

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.     

Use of hyper-thin, low water content hydrophilic lenses for extended wear

A study was conducted to determine the efficacy of low water content, hyper-thin lenses for extended wear by myopic patients. Patients selected had from 1 to 7 D of simple myopia or myopia with up to 2 D of astigmatism. Patients were either first time wearers or previously successful soft lens wearers. All patients were fitted with Bausch & Lomb O3 or O4 series lenses and were evaluated for 6 months. Either heat or a chemical disinfection system was used. The study shows that Bausch & Lomb O Series lenses may be used successfully for up to 1 week of continuous wear. Visual acuity, patient comfort, lens life, and physiological tolerance compared favorably with those achieved when the currently available high water content lenses were used for extended wear.     

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.