Visual performance with multifocal soft contact lenses in non-presbyopic myopic eyes during an adaptation period

Figures & data

Figure 1 Outline of study visits.

Abbreviations: SV, single vision; MFCL, multifocal soft contact lens; D, center-distance; N, center-near.

Table 1 Description of contact lenses and modality used in both groups

Groups	Contact lenses	Design	Manufacturer, state, country	Material	Diameter (mm)	Base curve (mm)
1, 2	AIR OPTIX^® AQUA (control)	Single vision	Alcon, TX, USA	Lotrafilcon B	14.2	8.6
1	Proclear^® Multifocal D design	Aspheric center-distance multifocal	CooperVision, CA, USA	Omafilcon A	14.4	8.7
	Proclear^® Multifocal N design	Aspheric center-near multifocal	CooperVision, CA, USA	Omafilcon A	14.4	8.7
2	AIR OPTIX^® AQUA MULTIFOCAL	Aspheric center-near multifocal	Alcon, TX, USA	Lotrafilcon B	14.2	8.6
	PureVision^® Multi-Focal	Aspheric center-near multifocal	Bausch and Lomb, NJ, USA	Balafilcon A	14.0	8.6

Table 2 Subjective response variables and the corresponding questions asked

Subjective response variables	Questions
Distance vision	“When I look into the distance with my contact lenses, my vision is:”
	Extremely unclear/blurred =0, Extremely clear/sharp =10
Intermediate vision	“When I look at the TV or computer screen with my contact lenses, my vision is:”
	Extremely unclear/blurred =0, Extremely clear/sharp =10
Near vision	“When I read books, magazines, and/or newspapers with my contact lenses, my vision is:”
	Extremely unclear/blurred =0, Extremely clear/sharp =10
Low illumination	“When driving at night with my contact lenses, my vision is:”
	Extremely unclear/blurred =0, Extremely clear/sharp =10, not applicable = “I have not driven a car with my lenses”
Walking	“When walking around with my contact lenses, my vision is:”
	Extremely unclear/blurred =0, Extremely clear/sharp =10
Overall comfort	“How would you rate the overall comfort of your eyes with these contact lenses?”
	Very uncomfortable =0, Very comfortable =10
Comfort moving	“When I move my head to look around with these contact lenses, I feel:”
	Very uncomfortable =0, Very comfortable =10

Table 3 Binocular and monocular high-contrast visual acuity (logMAR) as measured with the different lenses at all visits

Variables	Group	Lens	Dispensing visit		Interim visit 1		Interim visit 2		Final visit		Linear mixed model
			Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Lens	Visit	Interaction
Binocular HCVA	Group 1	Lotrafilcon B – SV	−0.13	0.06	−0.14	0.04	−0.13	0.06	−0.13	0.06	<0.001*	0.445	0.106
		Omafilcon A – MFCL D	−0.11	0.06	−0.12	0.06	−0.10	0.06	−0.10	0.06
		Omafilcon A – MFCL N	0.04	0.12	0.01	0.12	−0.01	0.11	−0.03	0.11
	Group 2	Lotrafilcon B – SV	−0.13	0.07	−0.13	0.06	−0.13	0.05	−0.14	0.05	<0.001*	0.274	0.728
		Lotrafilcon B – MFCL N	−0.07	0.07	−0.05	0.06	−0.06	0.05	−0.06	0.06
		Balafilcon A – MFCL N	−0.03	0.08	0.00	0.08	−0.02	0.08	−0.01	0.08
Monocular HCVA	Group 1	Lotrafilcon B – SV	−0.07	0.06	−0.07	0.07	−0.06	0.07	−0.08	0.06	<0.001*	0.004*	0.007*
		Omafilcon A – MFCL D	−0.02	0.13	−0.02	0.09	−0.03	0.09	−0.03	0.09
		Omafilcon A – MFCL N	0.13	0.15	0.06	0.11	0.05	0.12	0.03	0.10
	Group 2	Lotrafilcon B – SV	−0.08	0.08	−0.09	0.07	−0.06	0.08	−0.07	0.07	<0.001*	0.126	0.087
		Lotrafilcon B – MFCL N	0.00	0.08	0.04	0.09	0.01	0.07	0.02	0.07
		Balafilcon A – MFCL N	0.04	0.08	0.06	0.09	0.05	0.07	0.06	0.08

* Note: Statistically significant at an alpha level of 0.05. A linear mixed model was used.

Abbreviations: HCVA, high-contrast visual acuity; SD, standard deviation; SV, single vision; MFCL, multifocal soft contact lens; D, center-distance; N, center-near; logMAR, logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution.

Figure 2 Mean scores for the subjective responses obtained on the final visit of lens wear.

Notes: A linear mixed model was used. Error bars indicate standard deviations of the group; *indicate significant differences (P, 0.05) when compared to the control lens (Lotrafilcon B SV), subjective response scores were measured according to the following references; with distance, intermediate, near and low illumination vision and vision while walking scored according to the following; extremely unclear/blurred =0, extremely clear/sharp =10, whereas overall comfort and comfort moving were measured according to the following references; very uncomfortable =0, very comfortable =10.
Abbreviations: SV, single vision; MFCL, multifocal soft contact lens; D, center-distance; N, center-near.

Figure 3 Contact lens centration data (average of four visits).

Notes: A Linear mixed model was used, results are statistically significant at an alpha level of 0.05.
Abbreviations: SV, single vision; MFCL, multifocal soft contact lens; D, center-distance; N, center-near.

Figure 4 NIMO power profile measurements for all study lenses (distance power label −3.00 D, high add).

Notes: The power profiles of all study lenses were measured using NIMO TR1504 (Lambda-X, Nivelles, Belgium).
Abbreviations: SV, single vision; MFCLD, multifocal soft contact lens center-distance; MFCLN, multifocal soft contact lens center-near.

Table 4 Fourth-order polynomial fits for the different study lenses and the calculated area under the distance corrected power profiles between the half chords of 0.00 and 3.00 mm

Lens name	Fourth-order fit	R^Citation2	Area
Lotrafilcon B SV	Y 40–3mm = −0.0203x^Citation4 +0.1448x^Citation3 −0.3919x^Citation2 +0.2300x −2.9176	0.9968	−0.2993
Lotrafilcon B MFCL N	y0–3mm= −0.0751x^Citation4 +0.5003x^Citation3 −1.1718x^Citation2 +0.2206x −1.8386	0.9886	0.4119
Omafilcon A MFCL D	Y0–2mm = 0.3398x^Citation4 −0.3188x^Citation3 −0.3920x^Citation2 +0.0136x −2.2997	0.9659	3.3716
	Y2–3mm = −3.4633x^Citation4 +36.15x^Citation3 −140.78x^Citation2 +242.24x −156.19	0.9829
Omafilcon A MFCL N	y0–3mm = −0.0976x^Citation4 +1.1326x^Citation3 −3.4366x^Citation2 +1.7708x −0.1515	0.9863	3.7765
Balafilcon A MFCL N	y0–3mm = −0.0158x^Citation4 +0.1697x^Citation3 −0.5720x^Citation2 −0.2560x −0.7606	0.9880	3.0868

Abbreviations: SV, single vision; MFCL, multifocal soft contact lens; D, center-distance; N, center-near.

PereraSAWongTYTayWTFosterPJSawSMAungTRefractive error, axial dimensions, and primary open-angle glaucoma: the Singapore Malay Eye StudyArch Ophthalmol201012890090520625053

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

BabaTOhno-MatsuiKFutagamiSPrevalence and characteristics of foveal retinal detachment without macular hole in high myopiaAm J Ophthalmol200313533834212614751

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

WongTYKleinBEKleinRTomanySCLeeKERefractive errors and incident cataracts: the Beaver Dam Eye StudyInvest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2001421449145411381046

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar