Dataset Information

Visual Performance and Binocular/Accommodative Function of S.T.O.P. Contact Lenses Compared With MiSight.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The objective of this study was to compare the visual performance and binocular/accommodative function of two novel S.T.O.P. design (F2 and DT) contact lenses against MiSight when worn by myopic, young adults.

Method

This was a prospective, randomized, cross-over, single-masked study. Each lens was worn daily wear with overnight peroxide disinfection for approximately 7 days. Visual performance was assessed with subjective ratings (0-100): clarity of vision and lack of ghosting (far away, intermediate, and near), vision when driving, overall vision satisfaction, and with monocular high-contrast and low-contrast visual acuity (HCVA/LCVA) at 6 m, binocular HCVA (6 m, 70 cm, 50 cm, and 40 cm), binocular LCVA (6 m and 70 cm). Binocular function was assessed with heterophorias (3 m and 40 cm). Accommodative function was assessed with monocular accommodative facility (AF: 40 cm) and dynamic monocular accommodative response (AR: 6 m, 70 cm, and 40 cm).

Results

F2 was rated higher than MiSight for clarity of vision (near and intermediate) and lack-of-ghosting ( P <0.001), while MiSight was rated higher than DT for clarity of vision (near, P <0.001). MiSight was better than F2 and DT for monocular HCVA (6 m) and binocular HCVA (6 m and 40 cm, P ≤0.02), but the maximum difference was ≤2 letters. There were no differences between designs for heterophoria ( P =0.61) nor were there any differences between DT and MiSight for any accommodative measure ( P >0.1). F2 was higher for monocular-AF ( P =0.007) and lower for AR (70 cm and 40 cm; P ≤0.007) compared with MiSight.

Conclusions

The visual performance and binocular/accommodative function of S.T.O.P. designs F2 and DT were comparable with MiSight. F2 outperformed MiSight in some aspects of subjective visual performance and monocular accommodative function.

SUBMITTER: Tilia D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9875283 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Visual Performance and Binocular/Accommodative Function of S.T.O.P. Contact Lenses Compared With MiSight.

Tilia Daniel D Diec Jennie J Ehrmann Klaus K Falk Darrin D Fedtke Cathleen C Conrad Fabian F Wu Richard R Bakaraju Ravi C RC

Eye & contact lens 20221019 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>The objective of this study was to compare the visual performance and binocular/accommodative function of two novel S.T.O.P. design (F2 and DT) contact lenses against MiSight when worn by myopic, young adults.<h4>Method</h4>This was a prospective, randomized, cross-over, single-masked study. Each lens was worn daily wear with overnight peroxide disinfection for approximately 7 days. Visual performance was assessed with subjective ratings (0-100): clarity of vision and lack of ...[more]

PMID: 36282205

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo compare the visual performance of soft contact lenses reported to reduce myopia progression.MethodsIn 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 schematic myopic model eyes (-1.00, -3.00, and -6.00 D) by comparing the slope of the edge spread function (ESF), an indicator for optical performance/resolution and the blur patch size of the line spread function, an indicator for contrast, between the lenses.ResultsProclear Multifocal and MiSight provided the best distance acuities. However, the prototype lenses were rated significantly higher for many subjective variables, and there were no subjective variables where commercial lenses were rated significantly higher than the prototypes. Theoretical optical performance showed steeper slopes of the ESF and greater blur patch sizes of the LSP with commercial lenses, supporting the clinical findings of better visual acuities but reduced subjective performance. Participants wore prototypes longer and reported their vision acceptable for longer each day compared to MiSight. Both prototypes had the highest willingness-to-purchase rate.ConclusionsThe prototypes were better tolerated by myopes compared to the commercial soft contact lenses currently used for slowing myopia progression.

Project description:Theoretically, contact lenses change the accommodation and vergence demands of the eyes and directly or indirectly influence binocular vision. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of different optical designs of contact lenses on binocular vision and visual behavior among young adults. In this randomized, single-blinded experimental study, visual behavioral performance (VBP) and Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaires were used for preliminary screening. Nineteen myopic subjects aged 20-26 years (21.59 ± 1.40 years) participated in the study. Baseline values for subjective refraction and binocular visual functions were evaluated. All the subjects were randomly grouped to wear different optical designs of single-vision, progressive, and bifocal contact lenses. Eye examinations were performed on the first day (CL baseline), 2nd week, and 4th week of wearing the lenses. In addition, subjects completed the VBP and visual quality questionnaire again at the end of the examination. Single-vision contact lenses (Lens 1) increased accommodative lag, negative relative accommodation, and distant and near vergence; however, vergence facilities, accommodative facilities, heterophoria, and the comfort and posture balance dimensions in the VBP questionnaire were improved. Progressive contact lenses (Lens 2) reduced the lag of accommodation and near vergence; in addition, vergence facilities and accommodative facilities were also improved. Bifocal contact lenses (Lens 3) affected negative and positive relative accommodation, but vergence facilities and accommodative facilities also progressed. Furthermore, both progressive (Lens 2) and bifocal (Lens 3) contact lenses enhanced overall visual behavioral performance. In terms of visual quality, single-vision contact lenses (Lens 1) were the most comfortable, progressive and bifocal contact lenses reduced distant visual acuity and stability, progressive contact lenses (Lens 2) had more complaints about halos at night, and bifocal contact lens (Lens 3) users were more likely to have double vision. Compared with single-vision contact lenses, progressive and bifocal contact lenses relaxed accommodation, reduced the lag of accommodation, and improved visual behavioral performance. Although the vergence function showed a significant change, it did not show worse trends when wearing contact lenses. Contact lenses with different optical designs have a great influence on binocular vision and visual behavioral performance.

Project description:Background:It is unclear whether multifocal soft contact lenses (MFSCLs) affect visual quality when they are used for myopia control in juvenile myopes. The aim of this study was, therefore, to investigate the effect of MFSCLs on visual quality among juvenile myopia subjects. Methods:In a prospective, intervention study, thirty-three juvenile myopes were enrolled. Visual perception was assessed by a quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire with spectacles at baseline and after 1 month of MFSCL wear. At the one-month visit, the high (96%) contrast distance visual acuity (distance HCVA) and low (10%) contrast distance visual acuity (distance LCVA) were measured with single vision spectacle lenses, single vision soft contact lenses (SVSCLs) and MFSCLs in a random order. Wavefront aberrations were measured with SVSCLs, with MFSCLs, and without any correction. Results:Neither distance HCVA (p?>?0.05) nor distance LCVA (p?>?0.05) revealed any significant difference between MFSCLs, SVSCLs and single vision spectacle lenses. The overall score (the sum of ten symptoms) of the QoV questionnaire did not show a statistically significant difference between spectacles at baseline and after 1 month of MFSCL wear (p?=?0.357). The results showed that the frequency (p?<?0.001), severity (p?=?0.001) and bothersome degree (p?=?0.016) of halos were significantly worse when wearing MFSCLs than when wearing single vision spectacle lenses. In contrast, the bothersome degree caused by focusing difficulty (p?=?0.046) and the frequency of difficulty in judging distance or depth perception (p?=?0.046) were better when wearing MFSCLs than when wearing single vision spectacle lenses. Compared with the naked eye, MFSCLs increased the total aberrations (p?<?0.001), higher-order aberrations (p?<?0.001), trefoil (p?=?0.023), coma aberrations (p?<?0.001) and spherical aberrations (SA) (p?<?0.001). Compared with the SVSCLs, MFSCLs increased the total aberrations (p?<?0.001), higher-order aberrations (p?<?0.001), coma aberrations (p?<?0.001) and SA (p?<?0.001). The direction of SA was more positive (p?<?0.001) with the MFSCLs and more negative (p?=?0.001) with the SVSCLs compared with the naked eye. Conclusions:Wearing MFSCLs can provide satisfactory corrected visual acuity (both distance HCVA and distance LCVA). Although the lenses increased the aberrations, such as total aberrations and higher-order aberrations, there were few adverse effects on the distance HCVA, distance LCVA and visual perception after 1 month of MFSCL use. Trial registration:Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR-OOC-17012103. Registered 23 July 2017, http://www.chictr.org.cn/usercenter.aspx.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the impact of soft contact lens eye-fit on optical power by computational modelling and to produce correction maps for reversing this impact during the design process.MethodsFinite element models of spherical and toric hydrogel contact lenses at varying nominal powers of -20 D to +20 D, base curves radii (R1b) of 8.2, 8.5, 8.8 mm, and overall diameters (d3) of 14.5, 15.0, 15.5 mm were generated. Lenses were fitted to computational eye models generated with human eyes' topography data. Combined eye-lens simulations were run under the boundary conditions of the tears' surface tension between the contact lens and the eye in addition to the eyelid blink pressure. Lens optical zone power changes were calculated through computational light-ray tracing methods following each simulation.ResultsEffective power changes (EPC) were affected negatively for all toric simulated lenses with power varying from -20 D to +20 D. Spherical lenses demonstrated similar behaviour, however with some positive EPC over the power range from -20 D to -10 D for spherical power (SPH) lenses. EPC assessment was between +0.25 D and -0.5 D for most lenses, however, lenses with prescriptions from +10 D to +20 D incurred EPC outside this range. The spherical lenses showed a maximum effective power change of +1.046 ± 0.338 D (Average Eye), and a minimum of -3.278 ± 0.731 D (Steep Eye). Similarly, the toric lenses showed a maximum of +1.501 ± 0.338 D (Average Eye), and a minimum of -3.514 ± 0.731 D (Steep Eye). EPC trends, along with minimum and maximum power, generally increased negatively as nominal lens prescription increased positively. Contact lens base curve selection affected the assessed effective power change for both spherical and toric lenses. The effect from lens total diameter for spherical lenses was less substantial than that for toric lenses.ConclusionsThis study considered the impact of soft contact lens design parameters on effective optical power changes (EPC) after eye-fit. Spherical lenses experienced more EPC of clinical significance (>0.25 D) than toric lenses. Both types of lenses, spherical and toric (simple astigmatism), demonstrated similar trends in EPC on fitting from -20 D to +20 D, with lenses in the extremely positive and the extremely negative prescriptions demonstrating the highest EPCs. The lens base curve impacted the extent of EPC observed, with flatter base curves experiencing less power change. Diameter proved to impact toric lenses more than spherical ones, however generally the diameter has less effect on power change than base curve selection.

Project description:BackgroundTo investigate accommodative and binocular characteristics in myopic patients with age-related accommodation deficiency, and to investigate the relationship of accommodation amplitude (AA) with other accommodative and binocular parameters.MethodsMyopic patients between 40 and 50 years old to undergo refractive surgery were enrolled. Accommodative function, including AA, positive and negative relative accommodation (PRA and NRA), accommodative response (binocular cross cylinder, BCC), and binocular accommodative facility (BAF) were examined. Binocular vision measurements including simultaneous perception, fusional vergence, and stereovision assessed with a synoptophore. Near point of convergence (NPC) and the gradient accommodative convergence/accommodation (AC/A) ratio were also measured. A questionnaire was used to assess subjective visual discomfort experienced after prolonged near work.ResultsA total of 145 subjects were evaluated, with a mean age of 42.59 ± 2.89 (SD) years. In the full data set, 96(66.21%) of patients had PRA (>-1.50 D), 21(14.48%) of patients had NRA (< 1.50 D), and 113(77.93%) of patients had BCC (< 0.25 D). Out of 97 patients, 17(17.53%) had AC/A (< 2), 54(55.67%) had NPC (> 7.5 cm), 51(52.58%) had BAF (< 5 cpm). As for the simultaneous perception, 59(60.82%) had values greater than 0 prism dioptres. Adjusting for associated factors, participants with lower AA were more likely to be older (odds ratio [OR], 2.080; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.523-2.841) and with milder myopia (OR, 1.280; 95% CI, 1.029-1.594). Lower BAF (OR, 4.990; 95% CI, 1.731-14.386) was more likely to be found in individuals with lower AA. The three most commonly reported visual discomforts were eye strain or soreness, ocular pain or headache, and blurred text.ConclusionFor myopes at the early stage of presbyopia, the continuous tension in the vergence system was also worthy of our attention, in addition to the well-known AA insufficiency. Comprehensive assessment of the binocular status and appropriate management is recommended before and after corneal refractive surgery.

Project description:PurposeTo test the impact of professional management of soft contact lens wear on symptoms and ocular complications.MethodsSubjective symptoms and ocular complications of soft CL users who did not seek professional follow-up care (self-managed, SM), were compared to users who were prescribed CLs and their care professionally managed in optometry practices (PM), and to a control group of non-CL wearers. Habitual visual acuity, subjective dry-eye symptoms, and corneal abnormalities were assessed in all participants. CL wearers filled-out a usage habits questionnaire, and their CL fit was assessed. Outcomes were compared using Kruskal-Wallis and Chi Squared tests.ResultsThe SM, PM, and non-CL wearers cohorts included 127 (mean age:24.3±5.1, median:23, range:16-45 years,104 female), 132 (mean age:25.5±6.2, median:23, range:18-43 years,103 female), and 56 (mean age:22.3±3.5, median:21, range:18-39 years,36 female) participants, respectively. Meibomian gland dysfunction grade (p = 0.004, p<0.0001), limbal redness (both p = 0.04), corneal neovascularization (both p = 0.003), and papillary conjunctivitis (p<0.0001,p = 0.005) were significantly worse in SM CL wearers compared with both the non-CL wearers and PM CL wearers, respectively. Conjunctival staining was significantly worse in the SM cohort compared with the PM cohort (p = 0.01). 38.6% of the SM compared with 22.8% of the PM CL wearers, had an inappropriate refractive correction (p = 0.006). SM CL wearers wore CLs significantly more years (mean and median 1 year,p = 0.008), for more daily hours (mean and median of 2 hours,p<0.00001), and tended to nap or sleep with their CLs compared with the PM CL wearers (47 vs. 29,p = 0.02). The cohorts did not differ in their subjective symptoms.ConclusionsComplications are significantly more prevalent in SM CL wearers compared with PM CL wearers, and SM CL wearers tend to wear CLs with incorrect powers, and are less compliant with napping or sleeping with the CLs compared with PM CL wearers. These findings emphasize the importance of fitting, patient education and follow-ups in CL wearers.

Dataset Information

Visual Performance and Binocular/Accommodative Function of S.T.O.P. Contact Lenses Compared With MiSight.

Objectives

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Visual Performance and Binocular/Accommodative Function of S.T.O.P. Contact Lenses Compared With MiSight.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets