Visual function, ocular surface integrity and symptomatology of a new extended depth-of-focus and a conventional multifocal contact lens

Published:November 23, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2020.11.004

      Abstract

      Purpose

      To evaluate visual function, ocular surface integrity and dry eye symptoms with an extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) design and a conventional multifocal (MF) contact lens (CL) after 15 days of wear.

      Methods

      A crossover single mask randomised clinical trial was conducted including 30 presbyopes who used an EDOF and a conventional MF CL (Biofinity MF) for 15 days each. Defocus curves, depth-of-focus range, contrast sensitivity (CS) under photopic and mesopic conditions (with and without glare) and subjective perception of halos and glare were evaluated. The ocular surface was evaluated through non-invasive Keratograph tear breakup time (NIKBUT), averaged tear breakup time (NIKBUT-avg), tear meniscus height (TMH), bulbar and limbal redness, and conjunctival and corneal staining. Dry eye symptoms were assessed with the OSDI questionnaire.

      Results

      No statistically significant differences were found for defocus curves or depth-of-focus between the two CLs (both p > 0.05). Subjective perception of halos and glare was not significantly different between CLs. Statistically significant differences were observed for CS under mesopic conditions for low spatial frequencies (p = 0.008). None of the CL produced significant changes in NIKBUT, NIKBUT-avg, TMH or redness. No change in conjunctival staining was observed in 76.7 % and 73.3 % of participants for EDOF and Biofinity MF, respectively. No change in corneal staining was observed in 86.7 % and 83.3 % of participants for EDOF and Biofinity MF, respectively. No changes were observed in the symptomatology measured with OSDI questionnaire (p > 0.05).

      Conclusions

      Both CL for presbyopia offer good visual quality, preserve the ocular surface integrity and provide the patient with similar symptomatology levels after 15 days of lens wear.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      References

        • Holden B.A.
        • Fricke T.R.
        • Ho S.M.
        • Wong R.
        • Schlenther G.
        • Cronjé S.
        • et al.
        Global vision impairment due to uncorrected presbyopia.
        Arch Ophthalmol. 2008; 126: 1731-1739https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.126.12.1731
        • Morgan P.B.
        • Efron N.
        • Woods C.A.
        An international survey of contact lens prescribing for presbyopia.
        Clin Exp Optom. 2011; 94: 87-92https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2010.00524.x
        • Itoi M.
        • Itoi M.
        • Efron N.
        • Morgan P.
        • Woods C.
        Trends in Contact Lens Prescribing in Japan (2003–2016).
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2018; 41: 369-376https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2018.02.001
        • Novillo-Díaz E.
        • Villa-Collar C.
        • Narváez-Peña M.
        • Martín J.L.R.
        Fitting success for three multifocal designs: multicentre randomised trial.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2018; 41: 258-262https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2017.12.012
        • Bennett E.S.
        Contact lens correction of presbyopia.
        Clin Exp Optom. 2008; 91: 265-278https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2007.00242.x
        • Wahl S.
        • Fornoff L.
        • Ochakovski G.A.
        • Ohlendorf A.
        Disability glare in soft multifocal contact lenses.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2018; 41: 175-179https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2017.10.002
        • Kollbaum P.S.
        • Dietmeier B.M.
        • Jansen M.E.
        • Rickert M.E.
        Quantification of ghosting produced with presbyopic contact lens correction.
        Eye Contact Lens. 2012; 38: 252-259https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0b013e31825aa879
        • Madrid-Costa D.
        • Ruiz-Alcocer J.
        • García-Lázaro S.
        • Ferrer-Blasco T.
        • Montés-Micó R.
        Optical power distribution of refractive and aspheric multifocal contact lenses: effect of pupil size.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2015; 38: 317-321https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2015.03.008
        • Papadatou E.
        • Del Águila-Carrasco A.J.
        • Esteve-Taboada J.J.
        • Madrid-Costa D.
        • Cerviño-Expósito A.
        Objective assessment of the effect of pupil size upon the power distribution of multifocal contact lenses.
        Int J Ophthalmol. 2017; 10: 103-108https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2017.01.17
        • Tilia D.
        • Bakaraju R.C.
        • Chung j
        • Sha J.
        • Delaney S.
        • Munro A.
        • et al.
        Short-term visual performance of novel extended depth-of-focus contact lenses.
        Optom Vis Sci. 2016; 93: 435-444https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000000806
        • Bakaraju R.C.
        • Ehrmann K.
        • Ho A.
        Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs two commercial multifocals: part 1. Optical performance evaluation via computed through-focus retinal image quality metrics.
        J Optom. 2018; 11: 10-20https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2017.04.003
        • Rueff E.M.
        • Varghese R.J.
        • Brack T.M.
        • Downard D.E.
        • Bailey M.D.
        A survey of presbyopic contact lens wearers in a university setting.
        Optom Vis Sci. 2016; 93: 848-854https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000000881
        • Rueff E.M.
        • Bailey M.D.
        Presbyopic and non-presbyopic contact lens opinions and vision correction preferences.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2017; 40: 323-328https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2017.03.010
        • García-Lázaro S.
        • Ferrer-Blasco T.
        • Madrid-Costa D.
        • Albarrán-Diego C.
        • Montés-Micó R.
        Visual performance of four simultaneous-image multifocal contact lenses under dim and glare conditions.
        Eye Contact Lens. 2015; 41: 19-24https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000060
        • Pointer J.S.
        Sighting versus sensory ocular dominance.
        J Optom. 2012; 5: 52-55https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2012.03.001
        • Jerchel N.N.
        • Sickenberger W.
        • Schulze M.M.
        Objective classification and documentation of bulbar redness using a corneal topographer.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2012; 35: e18https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2012.08.058
        • Efron N.
        • Morgan P.B.
        • Katsara S.S.
        Validation of grading scales for contact lens complications.
        Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2001; 21: 17-29https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1475-1313.1999.00420.x-i1
        • Schiffman R.M.
        • Christianson M.D.
        • Jacobsen G.
        • Hirsch J.D.
        • Reis B.L.
        Reliability and validity of the ocular surface disease index.
        Arch Ophthalmol. 2000; 118: 615-621https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.118.5.615
        • Sivardeen A.
        • Laughton D.
        • Wolffsohn J.S.
        Randomized crossover trial of silicone hydrogel presbyopic contact lenses.
        Optom Vis Sci. 2016; 93: 141-149https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000000780
        • Fernandes P.R.
        • Neves H.I.
        • Lopes-Ferreira D.P.
        • Jorge J.M.
        • González-Meijome J.M.
        Adaptation to multifocal and monovision contact lens correction.
        Optom Vis Sci. 2013; 90: 228-235https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e318282951b
        • Piñero D.P.
        • Carracedo G.
        • Ruiz-Fortes P.
        • Pérez-Cambrodí R.J.
        Comparative analysis of the visual performance and aberrometric outcomes with a new hybrid and two silicone hydrogel multifocal contact lenses: a pilot study.
        Clin Exp Optom. 2015; 98: 451-458https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12299
        • Sha J.
        • Tilia D.
        • Kho D.
        • Diec J.
        • Thomas V.
        • Bakaraju R.C.
        Comparison of Extended-Depth-of-Focus prototype contact lenses with the 1-Day ACUVUE MOIST MULTIFOCAL after one week of wear.
        Eye Contact Lens. 2018; 44: 157-163https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000430
        • Tilia D.
        • Munro A.
        • Chung J.
        • Sha J.
        • Delaney S.
        • Kho D.
        • et al.
        Short-term comparison between extended depth-of-focus prototype contact lenses and a commercially-available center-near multifocal.
        J Optom. 2017; 10: 14-25https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2016.04.003
        • Plainis S.
        • Atchison D.A.
        • Charman W.N.
        Power profiles of multifocal contact lenses and their interpretation.
        Optom Vis Sci. 2013; 90: 1066-1077https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000000030
        • Gupta N.
        • Naroo S.A.
        • Wolffsohn J.S.
        Visual comparison of multifocal contact lens to monovision.
        Optom Vis Sci. 2009; 86: E98-105https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e318194eb18
        • Vasudevan B.
        • Flores M.
        • Gaib S.
        Objective and subjective visual performance of multifocal contact lenses: pilot study.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2014; 37: 168-174https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2013.09.013
        • Bakaraju R.C.
        • Tilia D.
        • Sha J.
        • Diec J.
        • Chung J.
        • Kho D.
        • et al.
        Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs. two commercial multifocals: part 2. Visual performance after 1 week of lens wear.
        J Optom. 2018; 11: 21-32https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2017.04.001
        • Papas E.B.
        • Decenzo-Verbeten T.
        • Fonn D.
        • Holden B.A.
        • Kollbaum P.S.
        • Situ P.
        • et al.
        Utility of short-term evaluation of presbyopic contact lens performance.
        Eye Contact Lens. 2009; 35: 144-148https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0b013e3181a20361
        • Buckhurst P.J.
        • Naroo S.A.
        • Davies L.N.
        • Shah S.
        • Drew T.
        • Wolffsohn J.S.
        Assessment of dysphotopsia in pseudophakic subjects with multifocal intraocular lenses.
        BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2017; 1e000064https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2016-000064
        • Yildiz Tasci Y.
        • Gürdal C.
        • Sarac O.
        • Onusever A.
        Evaluation of the tear function tests and the ocular surface in first-time users of silicone hydrogel contact lenses.
        Curr Eye Res. 2017; 42: 976-981https://doi.org/10.1080/02713683.2016.1276194
        • Sha J.
        • Bakaraju R.C.
        • Tilia D.
        • Chung J.
        • Delaney S.
        • Munro A.
        • et al.
        Short-term visual performance of soft multifocal contact lenses for presbyopia.
        Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2016; 79: 73-77https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.20160023
        • Sharma A.
        • Hindman H.B.
        Aging: a predisposition to dry eyes.
        J Ophthalmol. 2014; 781683https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/781683
        • Lorente-Velázquez A.
        • García-Montero M.
        • Gómez-Sanz F.J.
        • Rico-del-Viejo L.
        • Hernández-Verdejo J.L.
        • Madrid-Costa D.
        Comparison of the impact of nesofilcon A hydrogel contact lens on the ocular surface and the comfort of presbyopic and non-presbyopic wearers.
        Int J Ophthalmol. 2019; 12: 640-646https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2019.04.19