Tear film stability over a myopia control contact lens compared to a monofocal design

Dynamics of the accommodative response and facility with dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of using dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control on the dynamics of the accommodative response and facility.

METHODS

24 young adult myopes were fitted with dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control (MiSight®) and single-vision soft contact lenses (Proclear®). The WAM-5500 open-field autorefractor was used to measure the dynamics of the accommodative response (magnitude and variability) in binocular conditions, with accommodative data being gathered from the dominant eye, at three viewing distances (500 cm, 40 cm, and 20 cm) during 90 s. Also, the binocular accommodative facility was assessed with the WAM-5500 autorefractor. All participants performed the same experimental protocol with the dual-focus (MiSight) and single-vision (Proclear) soft contact lenses, with both experimental sessions being carried in two different days and following a counterbalanced order.

RESULTS

This study showed greater lags of accommodation with the MiSight than the Proclear lenses at near distances (40 cm: 1.27 ± 0.77 vs. 0.68 ± 0.37 D, corrected p-value = 0.002, Cohen-d = 0.90; and 20 cm: 1.47 ± 0.84 vs. 1.01 ± 0.52 D, corrected p-value = 0.007, Cohen-d = 0.75), whereas a higher variability of accommodation was observed with the dual-focus than the single-vision lenses at 500 cm (0.53 ± 0.11 vs. 0.23 ± 0.10 D), 40 cm (0.82 ± 0.31 vs. 0.68 ± 0.37 D), and 20 cm (1.50 ± 0.56 vs. 1.15 ± 0.39 D) (corrected p-value < 0.001 in all cases, and Cohen-ds = 0.67-2.33). Also, a worse quantitative (27.75 ± 8.79 vs. 34.29 ± 10.08 cycles per minute, p = 0.029, Cohen-d = 0.48) and qualitative (23.68 ± 7.12 vs. 28.43 ± 7.97 score, p = 0.039, Cohen-d = 0.45) performance was observed with the MiSight when compared to the Proclear lenses.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control alters the dynamics of accommodative response and facility in the short-term. Although this optical design has demonstrated its effectiveness for myopia control, eye care specialists should be aware of the acute effects of these lenses on accommodation performance.

Short-term tear film stability, optical quality and visual performance in two dual-focus contact lenses for myopia control with different optical designs

Purpose

To assess and compare short‐term visual and optical quality and tear film stability between two dual‐focus (DF) prototype myopia control contact lenses (CLs) having different inner zone diameters.

Methods

Twenty‐eight myopic subjects were included in this randomised, double‐masked crossover study. Refraction, best‐corrected visual acuity (VA) and tear film stability were measured at baseline (i.e., when uncorrected). Subjects were then binocularly fitted with the DF CLs, with only the sensorial dominant eye being assessed. Lenses were of the same material and had inner zone diameters of either 2.1 mm (S design) or 4.0 mm (M design). Visual and physical short‐term lens comfort, over‐refraction, best‐corrected VA, stereopsis at 40 cm, best‐corrected photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity (CS), size and shape of light disturbance (LD), wavefront aberrations, subjective quality of vision (QoV Questionnaire) and tear film stability were measured for each lens.

Results

Both CL designs decreased tear film stability compared with baseline (p < 0.05). VA and photopic CS were within normal values for the subjects' age with each CL. When comparing lenses, the M design promoted better photopic CS for the 18 cycles per degree spatial frequency (p < 0.001) and better LD (p < 0.02). However, higher‐order aberrations were improved with the S design (p = 0.02). No significant difference between the two CLs was found for QoV scores and tear film stability.

Conclusions

Both DF CLs provided acceptable visual performance under photopic conditions. The 4.0 mm inner zone gave better contrast sensitivity at high frequencies and lower light disturbance, while the 2.1 mm central diameter induced fewer higher‐order aberrations for a 5 mm pupil diameter. Both CLs produced the same subjective visual short‐term lens comfort.