Early Symptomatic Presbyopes—What Correction Modality Works Best?

Centre for Contact Lens Research, School of Optometry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Eye & contact lens (Impact Factor: 1.47). 09/2009; 35(5):221-6. DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e3181b5003b
Source: PubMed


To compare the performance of a low-addition silicone hydrogel multifocal soft lens with other soft lens correction options in a group of habitual soft lens wearers of distance correction who are symptomatic of early presbyopia.
This clinical study was designed as a prospective, double-masked, randomized, crossover, dispensing trial consisting of four 1-week phases, one for each of the correction modalities: a low-addition silicone hydrogel multifocal soft lens, monovision, habitual correction, and optimized distance visual correction. The prescriptions of all modalities were finalized at a single fitting visit, and the lenses were worn according to a randomized schedule. All lenses were made from lotrafilcon B material. A series of objective vision tests were conducted: high- and low-contrast LogMAR under high- and low-room lighting conditions, stereopsis, and critical print size. A number of other data collection methods used were novel: some data were collected under controlled laboratory-based conditions and others under "real-world" conditions, some of which were completed on a BlackBerry hand-held communication device.
All participants were able to be fit with all four correction modalities. Objective vision tests showed no statistical difference between the lens modalities except in the case of low-contrast near LogMAR acuity under low-lighting levels where monovision (+0.29 +/- 0.10) performed better than the multifocal (+0.33 +/- 0.11, P=0.027) and the habitual (+0.37 +/- 0.12, P<0.001) modalities. Subjective ratings indicated a statistically better performance provided by the multifocal correction compared with monovision, particularly for the vision associated with driving tasks such as driving during the daytime (93.3 +/- 8.8 vs. 84.2 +/- 23.7, P=0.05), at nighttime (88.8 +/- 11.7 vs. 74.9 +/- 23.6, P=0.001), any associated haloes or glare (92.0 +/- 10.6 vs. 78.0 +/- 22.8, P=0.003), and observing road signs (90.1 +/- 11.8 vs. 79.4 +/- 20.2, P=0.027). Preference for the multifocal compared with monovision was also reported when watching television (95.0 +/- 6.4 vs. 82.6 +/- 20.1, P=0.001) and when changing focus from distance to near (87.0 +/- 13.4 vs. 66.1 +/- 32.2, P<0.001).
For this group of early presbyopes, the AIR OPTIX AQUA MULTIFOCAL--Low Add provided a successful option for visual correction, which was supported by the results of subjective ratings, many of which were made during or immediately after performing such activities as reading, using a computer, watching television, and driving. These results suggest that making a prediction of "success or not" based on consulting room acuity tests alone is probably unwise.

Download full-text


Available from: Craig A. Woods
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate near stereoacuity (SA) with Focus Progressives and PureVision Multifocal simultaneous vision contact lenses. In a cross-over study design, 20 presbyopic subjects were fitted with either the Focus Progressives or PureVision Multifocal lenses. After 1 month, SA was measured with the vectographic Titmus, Random dot stereotests, and the Howard-Dolman apparatus under photopic conditions (85 lux) at 40 cm. Binocular high-contrast visual acuity at distance and near was examined. Subjects were then refitted with the alternative correction and the procedure was repeated. Mean SA with the Focus Progressive was 21 +/- 7 sec arc, 54 +/- 17 sec arc, and 51 +/- 21 sec arc, with the Howard-Dolman, Titmus, and Random dot sterereotests, respectively. These values were 25 +/- 9 sec arc, 74 +/- 26 sec arc, and 82 +/- 26 sec arc with the PureVision Multifocal, respectively. SA was better with the Focus Progressives compared with the PureVision using the Howard-Dolman (4 sec arc of difference; p = 0.001), Titmus (2 sec arc of difference; p = 0.001), and Random dot (31 sec arc of difference; p < 0.001) tests. Binocular mean high-contrast distance visual acuity was similar for the Focus Progressives and PureVision Multifocal: -0.01 +/- 0.07 and +0.02 +/- 0.08 logMAR, respectively (p = 0.074). At near vision, these values were +0.01 +/- 0.07 and +0.06 +/- 0.06 logMAR, respectively, being statistically significant different (p = 0.004). Both the Focus Progressive and PureVision Multifocal contact lenses provided good visual acuity preserving stereopsis. Focus Progressives had slightly better near acuity and better SA than the Purevision Multifocal contact lenses. Differences found between the lens types may be related to asphericity, near addition of the contact lens, or even visual acuity differences between the two eyes that were not measured in this study but could conceivably have contributed to SA measure differences. SA measurement with a Howard-Dolman apparatus reveals better SA than vectographic tests.
    No preview · Article · Sep 2010 · Optometry and vision science: official publication of the American Academy of Optometry
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT:   To evaluate near stereoacuity with the balanced Proclear Multifocal simultaneous vision contact lens.   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/m(2) ) at 40 cm. Binocular high-contrast visual acuities (BHCVA) at distance and near were examined.   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).   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.
    Preview · Article · Oct 2010 · Clinical and Experimental Optometry
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: A longitudinal prospective, cross-over, double masked study was designed to evaluate task oriented visual satisfaction and wearing success with two types of simultaneous vision multifocal soft contact lenses. Methods: Twenty-two presbyopic subjects followed two 14-day trial periods in which they were alternatively and randomly fitted with two types of multifocal lenses. Habitual tasks were described in terms of observation distance, visual demand level and time allocation. Subjects graded visual satisfaction with each pair of lenses and each habitual task at different times during each trial. Overall satisfaction was evaluated after completion of the two trial periods. Wearing success was determined by the percentage of subjects opting to continue multifocal lens wear and by the number of subjects still wearing their lenses six months later. Results: Viewing distance and visual demand level were found to influence visual satisfaction (p < 0.001). Visual satisfaction decreased for tasks involving higher visual demands and for near and far viewing distances, rather than for intermediate vision or a combination of near and far vision. A combined effect of lens type and evaluation time was discovered (p = 0.046). Although 78% of subjects decided to continue lens wear, only one subject was wearing them on a daily basis 6 months after the completion of the study. Insufficient quality of vision was reported as the main reason for multifocal contact lens discontinuation. Conclusions: A task oriented visual satisfaction evaluation may prove helpful in lens design selection, as well as in predicting wearing success.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2011 · Journal of Optometry
Show more