Association between multifocal soft contact lens decentration and visual performance

On-eye centration of soft contact lenses

PURPOSE

To evaluate the relative positions of modern soft contact lenses (SCLs) relative to the limbus/cornea and the pupil.

METHODS

Sixty images of the anterior eyes of 101 subjects were acquired over 10 s while participants fixated the centre of the camera lens located 33 cm in front of the eye in a well-lit (300 lux) clinic. Custom validated image analysis software was used to locate the boundaries of the contact lenses, pupils and corneas (limbus). Horizontal and vertical relative positions of the contact lens, pupil and limbus were calculated from the fitted boundaries.

RESULTS

The mean (standard deviation) pupil and corneal diameters for all subjects were 3.84 mm, (0.83) and 11.97 mm (0.48), respectively. The mean [95% confidence interval] pupil centre was located 0.28 mm [0.26, 0.30] nasally and 0.07 mm [0.05, 0.10] superiorly to the corneal centre. Consistent with clinical observations, the contact lenses centred accurately relative to the corneal centre both nasally 0.04 mm [0.01, 0.07] and inferiorly -0.01 mm [-0.06, 0.03]. However, regardless of the eye, the contact lens was significantly (p < 0.001) decentred relative to the pupil centre both temporally -0.23 mm [-0.26, -0.20] and inferiorly -0.08 mm [-0.12, -0.04]. Decentration magnitudes were significantly correlated between the right and left eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

Spherical SCLs centred well on the cornea but temporally and inferiorly from the primary line of sight (pupil centre), due to the differences in the location of the pupil and corneal centres. Contrary to some previous reports, there was no evidence that lens optics or material affected lens centration significantly.

Risk Factors for Corneal Monochromatic Aberrations and Implications for Multifocal and Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lens Implantation

PURPOSE

To discuss factors influencing corneal aberrations that might influence the optical quality after intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were the main resources used to search the medical literature. An extensive search was performed to identify relevant articles concerning factors influencing the level of corneal aberrations as of August 27, 2023. The following keywords were used in various combinations: corneal, aberrations, defocus, astigmatism, spherical aberration, coma, trefoil, quadrafoil, intraocular lens, and IOL.

RESULTS

Conclusive evidence is lacking regarding the correlation between age and changes in corneal aberrations. Patients with astigmatism have greater corneal higher-order aberrations than those with minimal astigmatism, particularly concerning trefoil and coma. Increased levels of corneal higher-order aberrations are noted following contact lens wear, in patients with dry eye disease, and with pterygium. Increased higher-order aberrations have been reported following corneal refractive surgery and for 3 months following trabeculectomy; regarding intraocular lens surgery, the results remain controversial.

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors influence the level of corneal higher-order aberrations. Multifocal and extended depth-of-focus IOLs can share similarities in their optical properties, and the main difference arises in their design and performance with respect to spherical aberration. Preoperative evaluation is critical for proper IOL choice, particularly in corneas with risk of high levels of aberrations. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(6):e420-e434.].

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Management with contact lenses and spectacles

This paper seeks to outline the history, market situation, clinical management and product performance related to the correction of presbyopia with both contact lenses and spectacles. The history of the development of various optical forms of presbyopic correction are reviewed, and an overview is presented of the current market status of contact lenses and spectacles. Clinical considerations in the fitting and aftercare of presbyopic contact lens and spectacle lens wearers are presented, with general recommendations for best practice. Current options for contact lens correction of presbyopia include soft simultaneous, rigid translating and rigid simultaneous designs, in addition to monovision. Spectacle options include single vision lenses, bifocal lenses and a range of progressive addition lenses. The comparative performance of both contact lens and spectacle lens options is presented. With a significant proportion of the global population now being presbyopic, this overview is particularly timely and is designed to act as a guide for researchers, industry and eyecare practitioners alike.

Visual Quality Assessment and Comparison of Monofocal and Multifocal Scleral Lens Designs: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

To compare visual quality, contrast sensitivity, stereopsis, subjective vision, and comfort between monofocal and multifocal scleral lens (SL) designs.

METHODS

An experimental, cross over and short-term pilot study has been performed. Nineteen presbyopic patients (51.9±3.8 years) with regular corneas participated voluntarily in the study and Onefit MED monofocal and multifocal SL designs were fitted bilaterally. Subjective vision and comfort, contrast sensitivity function, stereopsis, high- and low-contrast visual acuity (VA) at 4 m and 40 cm under photopic and mesopic conditions, and defocus curves were measured. Data analysis was performed with nonparametric tests. P<0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

RESULTS

Mean addition power of the prescribed lenses was 1.72±0.38 diopters. Multifocal design showed a statistically significant improvement for intermediate and near vision in the defocus curve under photopic and mesopic conditions (P<0.05), however, worsening in stereopsis (P<0.05) and contrast sensitivity for high spatial frequencies (P<0.05). Distance visual acuity (VA) showed significantly lower values under mesopic conditions for high- and low-contrast tests (P<0.05), and on low-contrast test under photopic conditions (P<0.001) with the multifocal design.

CONCLUSION

Multifocal SLs showed better visual performance at intermediate and near distances without compromising distance vision under photopic conditions for a high-contrast test when compared with monofocal design.

Dual-focus contact lenses for myopia control modify central retinal electrophysiology in humans

INTRODUCTION

Dual-focus contact lenses create two focal planes, one providing a clear retinal image while the other imposes myopic defocus on the retina to slow myopia progression. This study used global-flash multifocal electroretinogram (gmfERG) response amplitudes to compare central versus peripheral retinal responses under dual-focus conditions and to assess the optimal degree of myopic defocus compared with a single-vision control lens.

METHODS

Twenty participants each underwent three gmfERG trials, wearing a spectacle correction over dual-focus contact lenses with plano central power and peripheral secondary focal powers of either +2.00D, +4.00D or a plano single-vision lens. We compared amplitudes and latencies of the gmfERG direct and induced components (DC and IC) within participants, between the three different contact lens powers and at different retinal eccentricities (gmfERG ring).

RESULTS

We observed significant differences in the gmfERG responses between the single-vision and dual-focus contact lenses. Overall, DC amplitudes peaked between zero and +2.00D secondary power, while IC amplitudes were maximal between +2.00D and +4.00D. Compared with the single-vision control, the greatest increase in DC and IC amplitudes while wearing dual-focus lenses occurred within the central 10° of the retina. There was no interaction effect between gmfERG ring (eccentricity) and secondary power, and no difference in the latency of the gmfERG responses between different powers.

CONCLUSION

We found that dual-focus contact lenses with a +2.00D secondary power are close to that expected to induce the greatest increase in gmfERG responses relative to a single-vision lens. Dual-focus lenses produced the highest DC and IC response amplitudes relative to a single-vision lens in the central 10° of the retina. This suggests that dual-focus contact lenses slow myopia progression by modifying central rather than peripheral retinal activity.

Multifocal contact lens vision simulated with a clinical binocular simulator

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare the binocular visual perception of participants wearing multifocal contact lenses and these same lens designs viewed through a temporal multiplexing visual simulator.

METHODS

Visual performance and perceived visual quality at various distances were obtained in 37 participants wearing soft M-CLs and through the SimVis Gekko programmed with the same lenses. In a pilot study (n = 10) visual performance was measured in terms of LogMAR visual acuity (VA) at far (4 m), intermediate (64 cm) and near (40 cm) distances and through-focus VA (TFVA) curves with the simulated M-CLs. In the follow-up study (n = 27), LogMAR VA at far, intermediate and near distances were measured both with the actual and simulated M-CLs. Perceived visual quality was measured in both studies using the Multifocal Acceptance Score (MAS-2EV), and a Participants Reported Outcomes Vision questionnaire. Differences between the metrics obtained with simulated and actual lenses were obtained.

RESULTS

Both actual and simulated M-CLs increased depth-of-focus by a similar amount. Mean LogMAR VA differences with actual and simulated M-CLs ranged between 4 and 6 letters (0.08 ± 0.01, 0.12 ± 0.01 and 0.10 ± 0.01, for far, intermediate and near distances, respectively). MAS-2EV average score differences with actual and simulated M-CLs ranged between -1.00 and + 4.25. Average MAS-2EV scores were not correlated significantly with VA. However, MAS-2EV (average and individual scores) were highly correlated to visual quality questionnaire responses (p < 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

A simultaneous vision simulator accurately represented vision with M-CLs both VA at various distances and perceived visual quality, as measured in a clinical setting. The MAS-2EV metric accurately captured participant reported outcomes of standard vision questionnaires. The combination of SimVis Gekko and MAS-2EV has the potential to largely reduce chair time in M-CLs fitting.

Multifocal contact lenses: A bibliometric study

PURPOSE

To analyze the state of scientific publications in multifocal contact lenses field through a bibliometric study.

METHODS

The database used to carry out the study was SCOPUS and contained the descriptors "multifocal contact lens", "bifocal contact lenses", "progressive contact lenses" and "presbyopia contact lenses", limited to the fields of title, keywords and abstract. The indicators applied in this research were: doubling time and annual growth rate, Price's transience index, Lotka's law of scientific productivity, and Bradford's zones.

RESULTS

A total of 346 articles were published between 1960 and 2019. The growth in the number of publications matches the exponential adjustment slightly better (R = 0.53). The duplication time was 13.2 years. The productivity level is focused on articles with an average number of authors of just 2.06 per article. The Bradford core was formed by two journals, Optometry and Vision Science and Eye and Contact Lens.

CONCLUSIONS

Research on multifocal contact lenses has exponential growth, without evidence of having reached a saturation point. The main countries in scientific production in this field are the United States and Australia.

Addressing common myths and misconceptions in soft contact lens practice

Advances in contact lens technology over the past 50 years since the commercialisation of the first soft lenses in 1971 have been incredible, with significant changes in contact lens materials, frequency of replacement, care systems and lens designs occurring. However, despite the widespread availability of contact lenses, penetration rates for those who need vision correction remain in the low single digits and many practitioners seem to hold on to concepts around the potential value of contact lenses that appear based in the dim and distant past and are certainly no longer valid today. This review addresses 10 common 'myths and misconceptions' around soft contact lenses using an evidence-based approach that can hopefully dispel some of these incorrect assumptions.

In vivo drug delivery via contact lenses: The current state of the field from origins to present

Over the past half century, contact lenses have been investigated for their potential as drug delivery devices for ocular therapeutics. Hundreds of studies have been published in the pursuit of the most effective and efficient release strategies and methods for contact lens drug delivery. This paper provides a thorough overview of the various contact lens drug delivery strategies, with a specific, comprehensive focus on in vivo studies that have been published since the field began in 1965. Significant accomplishments, current trends, as well as future strategies and directions are highlighted. In vivo study analysis provides a straightforward perspective and assessment of method success and commercialization potential in comparison to benchtop, in vitro studies. Analysis of the majority of published work indicates in vitro and in vivo studies do not correlate with a correlation coefficient of 0.25, with many in vitro studies grossly overestimating drug release duration and not showing appreciable drug release control. However, there has been an increase in activity in the last decade, and some methods have generated promising results exhibiting controlled release with commercialization potential. Clinical translation of drug releasing lenses is on the horizon and has high potential to impact a large number of patients providing efficacious treatment compared to current topical treatments.

CLEAR - Evidence-based contact lens practice

Evidence-based contact lens -->practice involves finding, appraising and applying research findings as the basis for patient management decisions. These decisions should be informed by the strength of the research study designs that address the question, as well as by the experience of the practitioner and the preferences and environment of the patient. This reports reviews and summarises the published research evidence that is available to inform soft and rigid contact lens history and symptoms taking, anterior eye health examination (including the optimised use of ophthalmic dyes, grading scales, imaging techniques and lid eversion), considerations for contact lens selection (including the ocular surface measurements required to select the most appropriate lens parameter, lens modality and material selection), evaluation of lens fit, prescribing (teaching self-application and removal, adaptation, care regimen and cleaning instructions, as well as -->minimising risks of lens wear through encouraging compliance) and an aftercare routine.

Bifocal and Multifocal Contact Lenses for Presbyopia and Myopia Control

Bifocal and multifocal optical devices are intended to get images into focus from objects placed at different distances from the observer. Spectacles, contact lenses, and intraocular lenses can meet the requirements to provide such a solution. Contact lenses provide unique characteristics as a platform for implementing bifocality and multifocality. Compared to spectacles, they are closer to the eye, providing a wider field of view, less distortion, and their use is more consistent as they are not so easily removed along the day. In addition, contact lenses are also minimally invasive, can be easily exchangeable, and, therefore, suitable for conditions in which surgical procedures are not indicated. Contact lenses can remain centered with the eye despite eye movements, providing the possibility for simultaneous imaging from different object distances. The main current indications for bifocal and multifocal contact lenses include presbyopia correction in adult population and myopia control in children. Considering the large numbers of potential candidates for optical correction of presbyopia and the demographic trends in myopia, the potential impact of contact lenses for presbyopia and myopia applications is undoubtedly tremendous. However, the ocular characteristics and expectations vary significantly between young and older candidates and impose different challenges in fitting bifocal and multifocal contact lenses for the correction of presbyopia and myopia control. This review presents the recent developments in material platforms, optical designs, simulated visual performance, and the clinical performance assessment of bifocal and multifocal contact lenses for presbyopia correction and/or myopia progression control.

Peripheral Refraction and Aberration Profiles with Multifocal Lenses

SIGNIFICANCE

The amount of central or peripheral myopic shift, as induced by different multifocal contact lenses when viewing objects at distance or near, may provide insights on the potential efficacy for slowing eye growth.

PURPOSE

The present study aims to compare peripheral refraction and higher-order aberration profiles of four multifocal contact lenses with a single vision control lens.

METHODS

Thirty-five myopes (age 21.2 ± 2.1 years) completed the trial, of whom 16 wore Air Optix Aqua and Proclear Multifocal Distance and Near (Group 1, spherical equivalent: -2.90 ± 0.95D), whereas 19 wore Air Optix Aqua, Air Optix Multifocal, and PureVision Multifocal (Group 2, spherical equivalent: -2.95 ± 0.78D). Refraction and aberration profiles with lenses were measured using the BHVI-EyeMapper with (-2.00 to -5.00D in 1.00D steps) and without (+1.00D fogging) accommodation. Data were quantified using M2/4 (2nd and 2nd + 4th order), J0, J45, and higher-order aberration coefficients coma C[3, 1] and spherical aberration C[4, 0].

RESULTS

The center-distance lens exhibited a relative peripheral myopic shift in M2/4 and J0, positive on-axis C[4, 0], negative on-axis C[3, 1] and on-axis M4 was less negative for accommodative demands ≤-3.00D (P < .05). Inversely, the center-near lenses showed a relative peripheral hyperopic shift in M2/4 and J0, negative on-axis C[4, 0], positive on-axis C[3, 1] and on-axis M4 was more negative for demands of -2.00 and -3.00D (P < .05). Independent of lens type, relative peripheral M4 significantly decreased during accommodation. Accounting for C[4, 0], a greater change in relative M profiles and accommodative responses was found for multifocal lenses.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the hypothesis that myopic retinal defocus counters eye growth, center-near multifocal lenses exhibited the preferred on-axis features, i.e., producing a central myopic shift at near compared to the control. The center-distance lens exhibited preferred off-axis features, producing relative peripheral myopia, which increased further during accommodation.