Which is superior for postural stability: contact lens or spectacles?

ABSTRACT

Clinical relevance

The visual system plays an important role in providing postural balance. Visual input must have good quality to ensure proper balance.

Background

The aim of this work is to compare the use of soft contact lenses and spectacles in terms of postural stability.

Methods

Patients who wore both soft spherical or toric contact lenses and spectacles were examined between February and July, 2021. A detailed ophthalmic examination, including contact lens evaluation, was performed. The aim was to fully correct the refractive error and to prescribe the most appropriate spectacle and contact lens correction. After 1 month of use, patients were subjected to the balance test. The balance tests were repeated using the Biodex Balance System (Biodex Inc. Shirley, New York, USA), first with contact lenses and then with spectacles, 15 minutes later. Static and dynamic postural stability indices were compared.

Results

Thirty patients were included in the study. The mean age of the study group was 31.33 ± 4.54 (26–40) years. All patients had myopic refractive errors (20 patients with myopia and 10 patients with myopia and astigmatism). The mean spherical equivalent was −2.95 ± 1.81 (−4.50–(−0.50)) D. Static stability index score was found to be statistically significantly better in tests with contact lenses (p = 0.004). Among the dynamic postural stability parameters, overall stability index and antero-posterior stability index (APSI) scores with contact lenses were better than with spectacles, but the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05 for both). Medio-lateral stability index (MLSI) score was better in tests with contact lenses (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Contact lenses may provide better static and dynamic postural balance than spectacles in young patients with myopic refractive errors.

KEYWORDS:

• Biodex Balance System
• contact lenses
• postural stability
• spectacles

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.