Soft multifocal simultaneous image contact lenses: a review

REFERENCES

• Glasser A. Can accommodation be surgically restored in human presbyopia? Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76: 607–608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croft MA, Glasser A, Kaufman PL. Accommodation and presbyopia. Int Ophtalmol Clin 2001; 41: 33–46.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kleinstein RN. Epidemiology of presbyopia. In: Stark L, Obrecht G eds. Presbyopia. New York: Professional Press, 1987. p 14–15.
   Google Scholar
• Statistical Office of European Communities. Long term indications: population and social conditions. European Commission, Brussels, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. World population ageing 2009. [Cited 30 Jun 2010.] Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPA2009/WPA2009_WorkingPaper.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Papas EB, Decenzo‐verbeten T, Fonn D et al. Utility of short‐term evaluation of presbyopic contact lens performance. Eye Contact Lens 2009; 3: 144–148.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan PB, Efron N, Woods CA; International Contact Lens Prescribing Survey Consortium. An international survey of contact lens prescribing for presbyopia. Clin Exp Optom 2011; 94: 87–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan PB, Efron N. Contact lens correction of presbyopia. Cont Lens Ant Eye 2009; 32: 191–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gispets J, Arjona M, Pujol J et al. Task oriented visual satisfaction and wearing success with two different simultaneous vision multifocal soft contact lenses. J Optom 2011; 4: 76–84.
   Google Scholar
• Evans BJ. Monovision: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2007; 27: 417–439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman GJ, Vale A, Buckley J et al. Adaptive gait changes in long‐term wearers of contact lens monovision correction. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2010; 30: 281–288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Llorente‐guillemot A, García‐lázaro S, Ferrer blasco T et al. Visual performance with simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses. Clin Exp Optom 2012; 95: 54–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toshida H, Takahashi K, Sado K et al. Bifocal contact lenses: History, types, characteristics and actual state and problems. Clin Ophthalmol 2008; 2: 869–877.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bennett ES. Contact lens correction of presbyopia. Clin Exp Optom 2008; 91: 265–278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gautier CA, Holden BA, Grant T et al. Interest of presbyopes in contact lens correction and their success with monovision. Optom Vis Sci 1992; 69: 858–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain S, Arora I, Azar DT. Success of monovision in presbyopes: review of the literature and potential applications to refractive surgery. Surv Ophtalmol 1996; 40: 491–499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirschen DG, Hung CC, Nakano TR. Comparison of suppression, stereoacuity and interocular differences in visual acuity in monovision and Acuvue bifocal contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76: 832–837.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richdale K, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. Comparison of multifocal and monovision soft contact lens corrections in patients with low‐astigmatic presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci 2006; 83: 266–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandes PRB, Neves HIF, Lopes‐ferreira DP et al. Adaptation to multifocal and monovision contact lens correction. Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 228–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath DA, Hines C, Schwartz F. Suppression behaviour analyzed as a function of monovision addition power. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1986; 63: 198–201.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen WL, Lachance A. Stereoscopic acuity with induced refractive errors. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1983; 60: 509–513.
   Google Scholar
• Ghormley NR. New bifocal designs hyper‐oxygen materials. Eye Contact Lens 2003; 29: S180‐S181.
   Google Scholar
• Plakitsi A, Charman WN. Comparison of the depths of focus with the naked eye and with three types of presbyopic contact lens correction. J Br Contact lens Assoc 1995; 18: 119–125.
   Google Scholar
• Montés‐micó R, Alió JL. Distance and near contrast sensitivity function after multifocal intraocular lens implantation . J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29: 703–711.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montés‐micó R, España E, Bueno I et al. Visual performance with multifocal intraocular lenses: mesopic contrast sensitivity Ander distance and near conditions. Ophtalmology 2004; 111: 85–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Josephson J. To the editor: stereoacuity with simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2010; 87: 12: 1057.
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Ophtalmic Optics‐Contact Lenses, Part 1: Vocabulary, Classification System and Recommendations for Labelling Specifications. ISO 18369–1:2006. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Borish IM. Pupil dependency of bifocal contact lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1988; 65: 417–423.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Erickson P, Robboy M, Apollonio BS et al. Optical design considerations for contact lens bifocals. J Am Optom Assoc 1988; 59: 198–202.
   Google Scholar
• Charman WN, Saunders B. Theoretical and practical factors influencing the optical performance of contact lenses for the presbyope. J Br Contact Lens Assoc 1990; 13: 67–75.
   Google Scholar
• Baude D, Miège C. Presbyopia compensation with contact lenses‐ A new aspheric progressive lens. J Br Contact Lens Assoc 1992; 15: 7–15.
   Google Scholar
• Cox I, Apollino A, Erickson P. The effect of add power on simultaneous vision, monocentric, bifocal, soft lens visual performance. Int Contact Lens Clinic 1993; 20: 18–21.
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin WJ. Simultaneous vision contact lenses: why the dirty window argument doesn't wash. Int Contact Lens Clinic 1993; 20: 239–242.
   Google Scholar
• Charman WN, Walsh G. Retinal images with centred aspheric varifocal contact lenses. Int Contact Lens Clin 1988; 15: 87–93.
   Google Scholar
• Bakaraju RC, Ehrmann K, Ho A et al. Inherent ocular spherical aberration and multifocal contact lens optical performance. Optom Vis Sci 2010; 87: 1009–1022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakaraju RC, Ehrmann K, Falk D et al. Optical performance of multifocal soft contact lenses via a single‐pass method. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89: 1107–1118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plainis S, Ntzilepis G, Atchinson DA, Charman WN. Through‐focus performance with multifocal contact lenses: effect of binocularity, pupil diameter and inherent ocular aberrations. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2013; 33: 42–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madrid‐costa D, Ruiz‐alcocer J, García‐lázaro S et al. Optical power distribution of refractive and aspheric multifocal contact lenses: Effect of pupil size. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2015; 38: 317–321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mordi JA, Ciuffreda KJ. Static aspects of accommodation: age and presbyopia. Vision Res 1998; 38: 1643–1653.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods RL. The aging eye and contact lenses ‐ A review of ocular characteristics. J Br Contact Lens Assoc 1991; 14: 115–127.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher K, Bauman E, Schwallie J. Evaluation of two new soft contact lenses for correction of presbyopia: the Focus progressives multifocal and the Acuvue bifocal. Int Contact Lens Clin 1999; 26: 92–103.
   Google Scholar
• Jimenez JR, Durban JJ, Anera RG. Maximum disparity with Acuvue Bifocal contact lenses with changes in illumination. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79: 170–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legras L, Benard Y, Rouger H. Through‐focus visual performance measurements and predictions with multifocal contact lenses. Vision Res 2010; 50: 1185–1193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montés‐micó R, Madrid‐costa D, Radhakrishnan H et al. Accommodative functions with multifocal contact lenses: a pilot study. Optom Vis Sci 2011; 88: 998–1004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajagopalan AS, Bennett ES, Lakshminarayanan V. Visual performance of subjects wearing presbyopic contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2006; 83: 611–615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamin WJ, Borish IM. Presbyopia and influence of aging on prescription of contact lenses. In: Ruben N, Guillon M eds. Contact Lens Practice. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Brenner MB. An objective and subjective comparative analysis of diffractive and front surface aspheric contact lens designs used to correct presbyopia. CLAO J 1994; 20: 19–22.
   Google Scholar
• Madrid‐costa D, García‐lázaro S, Albarrán‐diego C, Ferrer blasco T, Montés Micó R. Visual performance of two simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2013; 33: 51–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mon‐williams M, Tresilian JR, Strang NC et al. Improving vision: neural compensation for optical defocus. Proc Biol Sci 1998; 265: 71–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cufflin MP, Mankowska A, Mallen EA. Effect of blur adaptation on blur sensitivity and discrimination in emmetropes and myopes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007; 48: 2932–2939.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George S, Rosenfield M. Blur adaptation and myopia. Optom Vis Sci 2004; 81: 543–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang B, Ciuffreda KJ. Foveal blur discrimination of the human eye. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2005; 25: 45–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung GH, Kline DW. Resolution of blur in the older eye: neural compensation in addition to optics. J Vis 2010; 10: 7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott SL, Hardy JL, Webster MA et al. Aging and blur adaptation. J Vis 2007; 7: 8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline DW, Buck K, Sell Y et al. Older observers' tolerance of optical blur: age differences in the identification of defocused text signs. Hum Factors 1994; 41: 556–564.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher S. Relationship between contour plots and the limits of ‘clear and comfortable’ vision in the near zone of progressive addition lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1997; 74: 527–531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods RL, Colvin CR, Vera‐diaz FA et al. A relationship between tolerance of blur and personality. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51: 6077–6082.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wan L. Take some frustration out of multifocal fitting . Contact Lens Spectrum 2003; 18: 42–44.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta N, Naroo SA, Wolffsohn JS. Visual comparison of multifocal contact lens to monovision. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: E98‐E105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Situ P, Du TR, Fonn D et al. Successful monovision contact lens wearers refitted with bifocal contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2003; 29: 181–184.
   Google Scholar
• Vasudevan B, Flores M, Gaib S. Objective and subjective visual performance of multifocal contact lenses: pilot study. Cont Lens Ant Eye 2013; 37: 168–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang B, Ciuffreda KJ. Depth‐of‐focus of the human eye: theory and clinical implications. Surv Ophthalmol 2006; 51: 75–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mordi JA, Ciuffreda KJ. Static aspects of accommodation: age and presbyopia. Vision Res 1998; 38: 1643–1653.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montés‐micó R, Madrid‐costa D, Domínguez‐vicent A et al. In vitro power profiles of simultaneous vision contact lenses. Cont Lens Ant Eye 2014; 37: 162–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plainis S, Atchinson DA, Charman WN. Power profiles of multifocal contact lenses and their interpretation. Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 1066–1077.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ten doesschate J, Alpern M. Effect of photoexcitation of the two retinas on pupil size. J Neurophysiol 1967; 30: 562–576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atchinson DA, Girgenti CC, Campbell GM et al. Influence of field size on pupil diameter under photopic and mesopic light levels. Clin Exp Optom 2011; 94: 545–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley PA, Davies AK. The effect of field of view size on steady‐state pupil diameter. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1995; 15: 601–3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guillon M, Maissa C, Cooper P et al. Visual performance of a multi‐zone bifocal and a progressive multifocal contact lens. CLAO J 2002; 28: 88–93.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher K. Presbyopic visual performance with modified monovision using multifocal soft contact lenses. Int Contact Lens Clin 1997; 24: 91–100.
   Google Scholar
• Cionni RJ. Get to know the defocus curve. Cataract Refract Surg Today 2010; November‐December: 39–42.
   Google Scholar
• Young G, Veys J, Pritchard N. A multi‐centre study of lapsed contact lens wearers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2002; 22: 516–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koetting RA, Andrews CE. The relationship of age, keratometry and miscellaneous physiological factors in hydrogel lens wear. Am J Optom 1979; 56: 642.
   Google Scholar
• Chalmers RL, Begley CG. Dryness symptoms among an unselected clinical population with and without contact lens wear. Cont Lens Ant Eye 2006; 29: 25–30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Richdale K, Sinnott LT, Skadahl E et al. Frequency of and factors associated with contact lens dissatisfaction and discontinuation. Cornea 2007; 26: 168–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du toit R, Situ P, Simpson T et al. The effects of six months of contact lens wear on the tear film, ocular surfaces and symptoms of presbyopes. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78: 455–462.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andres S, Henriques A, Garcia ML et al. Factors of the precorneal fluid break‐up time (BUT) and tolerance of contact lenses. Int Contact Lens Clin 1987; 4: 81–120.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett ES, Jurkus JM. Presbyopic correction. In: Bennett ES, Weissman BA eds. Clinical Contact Lens Practice, 2nd edn. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2005. pp 27–1 to 27–18.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett ES, Jurkus JM, Schwartz CA. Bifocal contact lenses. In Bennett ES, Henry VA, eds. Clinical Manual of Contact Lenses, 2nd edn. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000. pp 410–149.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett ES, Hansen D. Presbyopia: Gas permeable bifocal fitting and problem‐solving. In: Bennett ES, Hom MM, eds. Manual of Gas‐Permeable Contact Lenses, 2nd edn. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Science, 2004. pp 324–356.
   Google Scholar
• Situ P, Simpson TL, Jones LW, Fonn D. Effects of silicone hydrogel contact lens wear on ocular surface sensitivity to tactile, pneumatic mechanical and chemical stimulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51: 6111–6117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Q, Mcdermott AM, Miller WL. Elevated nerve growth factor in dry eye associated with established contact lens wear. Eye Contact Lens 2009; 35: 232–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dogru M, Ward SK, Wakamatsu T et al. The effects of 2 week senofilcon‐A silicone hydrogel contact lens daily wear on tear functions and ocular surface health status. Cont Lens Ant Eye 2011; 34: 77–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz CL, Kunert KS. Interleukin‐6 levels in tears of contact lens wearers. J Interferon Cytokine Res 2000; 20: 309–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcmonnies CW, Ho A. Responses to a dry eye questionnaire from a normal population. J Am Optom Assoc 1987; 58: 588–591.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mathers WD, Stovall D, Lane JA et al. Menopause and tear function: the influence of prolactin and sex hormones on human tear production. Cornea 1998; 17: 353–358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evinger C. A brain stem reflex in the blink of an eye. Physiology (Bethesda) 1995; 10: 147–153.
   Google Scholar
• Evinger C, Manning KA, Sibony PA. Eyelid movements. Mechanisms and normal data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991; 32: 387–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zametkin AJ, Stevens JR, Pittman R. Ontogeny of spontaneous blinking and of habituation of the blink reflex. Ann Neurol 1979; 5: 453–457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bacher LF, Smotherman WP. Spontaneous eye blinking in human infants: A review. Dev Psychobiol 2004; 44: 95–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karson CN. Spontaneous eye‐blink rates and dopaminergic systems. Brain 1983; 106: 643–653.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor JR, Elsworth JD, Lawrence MS et al. Spontaneous blink rates correlate with dopamine levels in the caudate nucleus of MPTP‐treated monkeys. Exp Neurol 1999; 158: 214–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shultz S, Klin A, Jones W. Inhibition of eye blinking reveals subjective perceptions of stimulus salience. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011; 108: 21270–21275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers RL, Hunt C, Hickson‐curran S et al. Struggle with hydrogel CL wear increases with age in young adults. Cont Lens Ant Eye 2009; 32: 113–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schafer J, Mitchell GL, Chalmers RL et al. The stability of dryness symptoms after refitting with silicone hydrogel contact lenses over 3 years . Eye Contact Lens 2007; 33: 247–252.
   Google Scholar
• Young G, Riley CM, Chalmers RL et al Hydrogel lens comfort in challenging environments and the effect of refitting with silicone hydrogel lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84: 302–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin JA, Roorda A. Predicting and assessing visual performance with multizone bifocal contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2003; 80: 812–819.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel S, Fakhry M, Alió JL. Objective assessment of aberrations induced by multifocal contact lenses in vivo. CLAO J 2002; 28: 196–201.
   Google Scholar
• Applegate RA, Marsack JD, Ramos R et al. Interaction between aberrations to improve or reduce visual performance. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29: 1487–1495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López‐gil N, Castejón‐mochón JF, Benito A et al. Aberration generation by contact lenses with aspheric and asymmetric surfaces. J Refract Surg 2002; 18: S603‐S609.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plainis S, Ginis HS, Pallikaris A. The effect of ocular aberrations on steady‐state errors of accommodative response. J Vis 2005; 5: 466–477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter J, Guirao A, Cox IG et al. Monochromatic aberrations of the human eye in a large population. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 2001; 18: 1793–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig A, Atchinson DA. Analysis of higher‐order aberrations in a large clinical population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53: 7862–7870.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Applegate RA, Donnelly WJ 3rd, Marsack JD et al. Three‐dimensional relationship between high‐order root‐mean‐square wavefront error, pupil diameter and aging. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 2007; 24: 578–587.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atchinson DA, Markwell EL. Aberrations of emmetropic subjects at different ages. Vision Res 2008; 48: 2224–2231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mclellan JS, Marcos S, Burns SA. Age‐related changes in monochromatic wave aberrations of the human eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001; 42: 1390–1395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietze HH, Cox MJ. On and off‐eye spherical aberration of soft contact lenses and consequent changes of effective lens power. Optom Vis Sci 2003; 80: 126–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benard Y, López‐gil N, Legras R. Subjective depth of field in presence of 4th‐order and 6th‐order Zernike spherical aberration using adaptive optics technology. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010; 36: 2129–2138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickenbothan A, Tiruveeddhula P, Roorda A. Comparison of spherical aberration and small‐pupil profiles in improving depth of focus for presbyopic corrections. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012; 38: 2071–2079.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plakitsi A, Charman WN. Ocular spherical aberration and theoretical through‐focus modulation transfer functions calculated for eyes fitted with two types of varifocal presbyopic contact lens. Cont Lens Ant Eye 1997; 20: 97–106.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Green DG, Campbell FW. Effect of focus on visual response to a sinusoidally modulated spatial stimulus. J Opt Soc Am 1965; 55: 1154–1157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koomen M, Scolnik R, Tousey R. A study of night myopia . J Opt Soc Am 1951; 41: 80–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yi F, Iskander DR, Collins M. Depth of focus and visual acuity with primary and secondary spherical aberration. Vision Res 2011; 51: 1648–1658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charman WN. Wavefront technology: past, present and future. Cont Lens Ant Eye 2005; 28: 75–92.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ooi TL, He ZJ. Binocular rivalry and visual awareness: the role of attention. Perception 1999; 28: 551–574.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ooi TL, He ZJ. Sensory eye dominance. Optometry 2001; 72: 168–178.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Seijas O, Gómez de liaño P, Gómez de liaño R et al. Ocular dominance diagnosis and its influence in monovision. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 144: 209–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pointer JS. Sighting versus sensory ocular dominance. J Optom 2012; 5: 52–55.
   Google Scholar
• Schor C, Landsman L, Erickson P. Ocular dominance and the interocular suppression of blur in monovision. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1987; 64: 723–730.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robboy MW, Cox IG, Erickson P. Effects of sighting and sensory dominance on monovision high and low contrast visual acuity. CLAO J 1990; 16: 299–301.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zheleznyak L, Alarcon A, Dieter KC et al. The role of sensory ocular dominance on through‐focus visual performance in monovision presbyopia corrections . J Vis 2015; 15: 17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erickson P, Mcgill EC. Role of visual acuity, stereoacuity and ocular dominance in monovision patient success. Optom Vis Sci 1992; 69: 761–764.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogt A, Bateman K, Green T et al. Using power profiles to evaluate aspheric lenses. Contact Lens Spectrum 2011; 26: 43–45.
   Google Scholar
• Wolffsohn JS, Jinabhai AN, Kingsnorth A et al. Exploring the optimum step size for defocus curves. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013; 39: 873–880.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmindinger G, Geitzenauer W, Hasle B et al. Depth of focus in eyes with diffractive bifocal and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006; 32: 1650–1656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayashi K, Manabe SI, Hayashi H. Visual acuity from far to near and contrast sensitivity in eyes with a diffractive multifocal intraocular lens with a low addition power. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 2070–2076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pieh S, Kellner C, Hanselmayer G et al. Comparison of visual acuities at different distances and defocus curves. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28: 1964–1967.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maxwell WA, Cionni RJ, Lehmann RP et al. Functional outcomes after bilateral implantation of apodized diffractive aspheric acrylic intraocular lenses with a +3.0 or +4.0 diopter addition power; randomized multicenter clinical study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 2054–2061.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cilino S, Casuccio A, Di pace F et al. One‐year outcomes with new‐generation multifocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 1508–1516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toto L, Falconio G, Vecchiarino L et al. Visual performance and biocompatibility of 2 multifocal diffractive IOLs; six‐month comparative study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007; 33: 1419–1425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Naroo SA et al. Multifocal intraocular lens differentiation using defocus curves. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53: 3920–3926.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alfonso JF, Fernandez‐vega L, Amhaz H et al. Visual function after implantation of an aspheric bifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 885–892.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta N, Wolffsohn SW, Naroo SA. Optimizing measurements of subjective amplitude of accommodation with defocus curves. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34: 1329–1338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Back AP, Holden BA, Hine NA. Correction of presbyopia with contact lenses: comparative success rates with three systems. Optom Vis Sci 1989; 66: 518–525.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman MH, Charman WN. An exploration of modified monovision with diffractive bifocal contact lenses. Cont Lens Ant Eye 2007; 30: 189–196.
   Google Scholar
• Hough A. Soft bifocal contact lenses: the limits of performance. Cont Lens Ant Eye 2002; 25: 161–175.
   Google Scholar
• Koffler BH. Management of presbyopia with soft contact lenses. Ophthalmologica 2002; 216 (suppl): 34–51.
   Google Scholar
• Evans BJ. Monovision: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2007; 27: 417–439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Key JE, Yee JL. Prospective clinical evaluation of the Acuvue Bifocal contact lens. CLAO J 1999; 25: 218–221.
   Google Scholar
• Sheedy JE, Harris MG, Bronge MR et al. Task and visual performance with concentric bifocal contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1991; 68: 537–541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Situ P, Du toit R, Fonn D et al. Successful monovision contact lens wearers refitted with bifocal contact lenses. Eye Cont Lens 2003; 29: 181–184.
   Google Scholar
• Chu BS, Wood JM, Collins MJ. Effect of presbyopic vision corrections on perceptions of driving difficulty. Eye Cont Lens 2009; 35: 133–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madrid‐costa D, Tomás E, Ferrer‐blasco T et al. Visual performance of a multifocal toric soft contact lens. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89: 1627–1635.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer‐blasco T, Madrid‐costa D. Stereoacuity with balanced presbyopic contact lenses. Clin Exp Optom 2011; 94: 76–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer‐blasco T, Madrid‐costa D. Stereoacuity with simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2010; 87: E663‐E668.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madrid‐costa D, Ruiz‐alcocer J, Radhakrishnan H et al. Changes in accommodative responses with multifocal contact lenses: a pilot study. Optom Vis Sci 2011; 88: 1309–1316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz‐alcocer J, Madrid‐costa D, Radhakrishnan H et al. Changes in accommodation and ocular aberration with simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2012; 38: 288–294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar