Central and peripheral visual performance in myopes: Contact lenses versus spectacles (original) (raw)
Related papers
Graefes Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 2011
Background Theoretically, the accommodative and vergence demands are different between single-vision contact lenses and spectacle lenses. The aim of the present study was to determine whether these differences exist when these two correction methods are used in clinical practice. For this, different visual parameters that characterize the accommodative (accommodation amplitude, accommodative facility, and accommodative response) and binocular function (near and distance horizontal and vertical dissociated phorias, near and vertical associated phorias, near and distance negative and positive fusional vergence, vergence facility, near point of convergence, negative and positive relative accommodation, stimulus AC:A ratio and stereoacuity) were evaluated in a student population when their myopia was corrected with either spectacles or soft contact lenses (SCL). Methods All parameters were measured on two separate occasions in 30 myopic habitual contact lens and spectacle wearers of mean age 19 ± 2.4 years. Some parameters such as accommodation amplitude, accommodative response, and stimulus AC:A ratio were measured using two measurement methods which are commonly used in clinical practice. Three measurements were taken for each parameter and averaged. For the comparative statistical analysis, we used the Student’s t-test (p value < 0.05). Results The following statistically significant differences were found with the use of SCL in comparison to spectacles: higher accommodative lags, higher negative relative accommodation, more esophoric near horizontal dissociated phoria, and lower negative fusional vergence in near vision. Conclusions The results found in this study show a definite trend towards poorer accommodative and vergence function with the use of contact lenses in comparison to glasses. This downward trend, though not statistically significant in accommodative function (lower PRA values and less lens amplitude of accommodation) might suggest that temporal insufficiency in the accommodation process could be occurring while contact lenses are used, thereby possibly creating a lag in accommodation to reduce associated overconvergence. This would be manifested in more esophoric values being found in the vergence function. The higher accommodative lags found in this study with SCL could indicate that prolonged use of SCL in near tasks may provoke a continuous hyperopic retinal defocus, a risk factor for the onset and progression of myopia, as indicated in numerous studies.
Visual performance of myopia control soft contact lenses in non-presbyopic myopes
Clinical optometry, 2018
To compare the visual performance of soft contact lenses reported to reduce myopia progression. In a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial, 30 non-presbyopic myopes wore MiSight™, center-distance Proclear Multifocal (+2.00 D add), and two prototype lenses for 1 week each. High- and low-contrast visual acuities at 6 m, and 70 and 40 cm; stereopsis at 40 cm; accommodative facility at 33 cm; and horizontal phoria at 3 m and 33 cm were measured after 1 week. Subjective performance was assessed on a numeric rating scale for vision clarity, lack of ghosting, vision stability, haloes, overall vision satisfaction, and ocular comfort. Frequency of eye-strain symptoms and willingness to purchase lenses were also reported with categorical responses. Participants reported wearing times (total and visually acceptable). Linear mixed models and chi-square tests were employed in analysis with level of significance set at 5%. Theoretical optical performance of all lenses was assessed with schema...
Comparison of contrast sensitivity in myopic patients using spectacle and contact lens correction
Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, 2021
Aim: To compare the contrast sensitivity in different categories of myopia using two different optical correction spectacles and contact lens correction. Methods: This cross-sectional study in design was conducted from August 2018 to May 2019 at the Ophthalmology Department of Madinah Teaching Hospital Faisalabad.45 subjects corrected with spectacles lenses and contact lenses all had corrected visual acuity of 6/9 or better were studied.The extent of myopia determined the three groups. All individuals were subjected to spectacles and Contact lens correction using slitlamp for anterior eye examination and for the fundus examination. The assessment of visual acuity was carried out by the Snellen vision Chart at 6m distance and contrastssensitivity was tested by Pelli- Robson chart. Results: Results showed a significant relationship between contrast sensitivity and type of optical correction. There were significant results of the independent t-test for spectacle and contact lenses 0.00...
Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics
We aimed to determine myopia control efficacy with novel contact lenses (CL) that (1) reduced both central and peripheral defocus, and (2) provided extended depth of focus with better global retinal image quality for points on, and anterior to, the retina and degraded for points posterior to the retina. Methods: Children (n = 508, 8-13 years) with cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) À0.75 to À3.50D were enrolled in a prospective, double blind trial and randomised to one of five groups: (1) single vision, silicone hydrogel (SH) CL; (2) two groups wearing SH CL that imposed myopic defocus across peripheral and central retina (test CL I and II; +1.00D centrally and +2.50 and +1.50 for CL I and II at 3 mm semi-chord respectively); and (3) two groups wearing extended depth of focus (EDOF) hydrogel CL incorporating higher order aberrations to modulate retinal image quality (test CL III and IV; extended depth of focus of up to +1.75D and +2.50D respectively). Cycloplegic autorefraction and axial length (AL) measurements were conducted at six monthly intervals. Compliance to lens wear was assessed with a diary and collected at each visit. Additionally, subjective responses to various aspects of lens wear were assessed. The trial commenced in February 2014 and was terminated in January 2017 due to site closure. Myopia progression over time between groups was compared using linear mixed models and where needed post hoc analysis with Bonferroni corrections conducted. Results: Myopia progressed with control CL À1.12 AE 0.51D/0.58 AE 0.27 mm for SE/AL at 24 months. In comparison, all test CL had reduced progression with SE/ AL ranging from À0.78D to À0.87D/0.41-0.46 mm at 24 months (AL: p < 0.05 for all test CL; SE p < 0.05 for test CL III and IV) and represented a reduction in axial length elongation of about 22% to 32% and reduction in spherical equivalent of 24% to 32%. With test CL, a greater slowing ranging from 26% to 43% was observed in compliant wearers (≥6 days per week; Control CL: À0.64D/0.30 mm and À1.14D/0.58 mm vs test CL: À0.42D to À0.47D/0.12-0.18 mm and À0.70 to À0.81D/0.19-0.25 mm at 12 and 24 months respectively). Conclusions: Contact lenses that either imposed myopic defocus at the retina or modulated retinal image quality resulted in a slower progression of myopia with greater efficacy seen in compliant wearers. Importantly, there was no difference in the myopia control provided by either of these strategies.
Myopia Progression in Children Wearing Spectacles vs. Switching to Contact Lenses
Optometry and Vision Science, 2009
Purpose-To investigate myopia progression in Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET) participants who switched to soft contact lenses (CLs) versus remained in spectacles after the clinical trial ended. Methods-469 ethnically diverse, 6-11 year old myopic children were randomly assigned to wear single vision lenses (SVLs) or progressive addition spectacle lenses (PALs) for 5 years as part of COMET. Afterwards they could choose another lens type, including CLs. Data in this paper are from 286 participants who wore their original spectacle lenses for 6 years (n =199) or wore CLs most or all of the time between the 5-and 6-year visits (n =87). Refractive error and axial length (AL) were measured after cycloplegia with 1% Tropicamide. The primary outcome was myopia progression between the 5-and 6-year visits. Two-year myopia progression was evaluated in a subset of 183 participants who wore the same lens type for an additional year. Myopia progression and AL were compared between the two lens groups using multiple linear regression. Results-Participants in the two groups were similar with respect to age, ethnicity, myopia at 5years, accommodation and phoria, but more girls switched to CLs than remained in spectacles (p<0.0001). Mean (± SD) myopia progression was higher (p=0.003) after one year in the CL group (−0.28 ± 0.33D) than the spectacle group (−0.14 ± 0.36D), and remained higher after two years in the 2-year subset (− 0.52 ± 0.46D versus −0.25 ± 0.39D, p<0.0001). Results were similar after adjustment for related factors. No significant differences in AL were found between groups after adjustment. Corneal curvature remained unchanged in both groups. Conclusions-COMET children switching from glasses to contact lenses experienced a small, statistically significant but clinically inconsequential increase in myopia progression.
A Clinical Study of the Impact of Soft Contact Lenses on the Progression of Myopia in Young Patients
Clinical Ophthalmology
To assess the impact of soft contact lenses on the progression of myopia in young patients. Patients and Methods: The observational study included 102 patients divided into 3 groups: MFCL (multifocal contact lenses) group: 15 girls and 9 boys, aged 8-20 (� x= 14.12 ± 2.863) with soft multifocal contact lenses with myopia: � x = −3.12 D ± 1.776 D and mean myopia progression −0.23 ± 0.233D after 2 years; SVCL (single vision contact lenses) group: 30 girls and 5 boys, 11-20 years old (� x=15.5 ± 2.24) with myopia � x = −2.88 ± 2.122 D at admission and mean myopia progression −0.54 ± 0.464 D after 2 years; the spectacle (single vision glasses) group: 25 girls and 18 boys, aged 8-18 years (� x = 13.65 ± 2.448) with single vision glasses with myopia: � x = −1.74 ± 1.412 D at admission and mean myopia progression −0.86 ± 0.489D after 2 years. Medical history and physical examination were performed every 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Refractive error was examined using the autorefractometry after cycloplegia. Results: The analysis of myopia correction after 2 years showed differences between MFCL and spectacle correction. The change in myopia progression after 2 years was statistically significant for MFCL vs SVCL and MFCL vs spectacle correction when the myopia occured before the period of intensive growth. When myopia occurred during the period of intensive growth, difference was noted for MFCL vs spectacle correction and SVCL vs spectacle correction. When myopia occurred after a period of intensive growth, no significant differences between the groups were observed. Conclusion: 1) Multifocal contact lenses and some single vision contact lenses (Biofinity) may be useful in the control of myopia in younger patients, slowing the progression of nearsightedness; therefore, they can be a therapeutic option in inhibiting the progression of myopia. 2) The best effects of using multifocal contact lenses occur if myopia is diagnosed before the period of intensive growth.
Journal of Optometry, 2009
Although previous studies suggest that orthokeratology contact lens wear slows eye growth in children with progressing myopia, some limitations in the methodology employed have become evident. Furthermore, the safety of this modality of visual correction has not been assessed. The study "Myopia Control with Orthokeratology Contact Lenses in Spain" (MCOS) is being conducted to compare axial length growth between white European myopic children wearing orthokeratology contact lenses (OK) and wearing distance single-vision spectacles (SV). Additionally, the incidence of adverse events and discontinuations is also recorded. We outline the methodology and baseline data adopted. METHODS: Subjects aged 6 to 12, with myopia ranging from 0.75 to 4.00 D and astigmatism ≤1.00 D were prospectively allocated OK or SV correction. Measurements of axial length, anterior chamber depth, corneal topography, cycloplegic autorefraction, visual acuity and corneal staining are performed at 6-month intervals. The incidence of adverse events and discontinuations are also recorded. RESULTS: Thirty one children were fitted with OK and 31 with SV correction. Eight subjects did not meet the refraction-related inclusion criteria for enrollment. No significant differences were found in baseline mean age and refractive and biometric data between the two groups (P>0.05). No adverse events were found in any of the two groups at baseline. CONCLUSION: To the authors' knowledge, MCOS is the first prospective clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of orthokeratology contact lens wear to slow myopia progression vs. single-vision spectacle wear. The MCOS offers a number of notable features: prospective design; well-matched samples and high-resolution ocular biometry measures, which should collectively elucidate whether orthokeratology contact lens wear is a feasible and safe method for myopia-progression control. (J Optom 2009;2:215-222
Frontiers in Neuroscience, 2021
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate short-term visual performance and optical quality of three different lenslet configurations on myopia control spectacle lenses. Materials and Methods: This study utilized a cross-over design. Distance visual acuity (VA) was measured in 50 myopic children; contrast sensitivity (CS) was measured in 36 myopic children. For each test, four spectacle lenses were evaluated in a random order: single-vision lens (SVL), lens with concentric rings of highly aspherical lenslets (HAL), lens with concentric rings of slightly aspherical lenslets (SAL), and lens with honeycomb configuration of spherical lenslets (HC). The modulation transfer function (MTF) and MTF area (MTFa) were used to determine optical quality. All tests were performed monocularly on the right eye with full correction. Results: HAL and SAL had larger MTFa than HC. VA in lenses with lenslets was significantly reduced compared to SVL (all p < 0.01). The reduction in VA was worse with HC t...
Contact Lens and Anterior Eye, 2019
To assess the visual performance of multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs) with high addition powers designed for myopia control. Methods: Twenty-four non-presbyopic adults (mean age 24 years, range 18-36 years) were fitted with soft MFCLs with add powers of +2.0 D (Add2) and +4.0 D (Add4) (RELAX, SwissLens) and single vision lenses (SVCL; Add0) in a counterbalanced order. In this double-masked study, half of the participants were randomly fitted with 3 mm-distance central zone MFCLs while the other half received 4.5 mm-distance central zone MFCLs. Visual acuity was measured at distance (3.0 m) and at near (0.4 m). Central and peripheral contrast sensitivity was evaluated at distance using the Gabor patch test. The area under the logarithmic contrast sensitivity function curve (ALCSF) was calculated and compared between the groups (i.e. different additions powers used). Results: Near and distance visual acuities were not affected by the lenses, neither Add2 nor Add4, when compared to Add0, however, CZ3 significantly reduced distance visual acuity with Add4 when compared to CZ4.5 (−0.08 logMAR vs. for CZ3 and-0.18 logMAR for CZ4.5, p = 0.013). MFCLs impaired central ALCSF only when Add2 was used (15.99 logCS for Add2 and 16.36 logCS for SVCLs, p = 0.021). Peripheral ALCSF was statistically lower for both addition powers of the MFCLs when compared to SVCLs (12.70 for Add2 and Add4, 13.73 for SVCLs, p = 0.009). The above effects were the same for both central zones used. Conclusions: MFCLs with CZ3 diameter and high add power (Add4) slightly reduced distance visual acuity when compared to CZ4.5 but no reduction in this parameter was found with medium add power (Add2). Central contrast sensitivity was impaired only by MFCLs with the lower add power (Add2). Both add powers in the MFCLs reduced peripheral contrast sensitivity to a similar extent.
British Journal of Ophthalmology, 1989
Two hundred and forty mildly myopic schoolchildren aged 9-11 years were randomly allocated to three treatment groups and the progression of myopia was followed-up for three years. The treatment groups were: (1) minus lenses with full correction for continuous use (the reference group), (2) minus lenses with full correction to be used for distant vision only, and (3) bifocal lenses with + 1.75 D addition. Three-year refraction values were received from 237 children. The differences in the increases of the spherical equivalents were not statistically significant in the right eye, but in the left eye the change in the distant use group was significantly higher (-1-87 D) than in the continuous use group (-1 .46 D) (p=002, Student's t test). There were no differences between the groups in regard to school achievement, accidents, or satisfaction with glasses. In all three groups the more the daily close work done by the children the faster was the rate of myopic progression (right eye: r=0253, p=00001, left eye: r=0-267, p=0.0001). Myopic progression did not correlate positively with accommodation, but the shorter the average reading distance of the follow-up time the faster was the myopic progression (right eye: r=0O222, p=0.0001, left eye: r=0-255, p=0.001). It seems that myopic progression is connected with much use of the eyes in reading and close work and with short reading distance but that progression cannot be reduced by diminishing accommodation with bifocals or by reading without spectacles.