Contact lens correction of presbyopia

REFERENCES

• Schwartz CA. Portrait of a presbyope in 1999. Optom Today 1999; (Suppl): 5–7.
   Google Scholar
• Meyler J, Veys J. A new pupil‐intelligent design for presbyopic correction. Optician 1999; 217: 18–23.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards K. Contact lens problem‐solving: bifocal contact lenses. Optician 1999; 218: 26–32.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett ES, Jurkus JM. Presbyopic correction. In: Bennett ES, Weissman BA. Clinical Contact Lens Practice, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2005. p 27–1 to 27–18.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan PB, Woods CA, Jones D, Efron N, Tan KO, Gonzales MY, Pesinova A, Runberg SE, Tranoudis IG, Chandrinor A, Fine P, Montani G, Morani E, Itoi M, Bendoriene J, Van der worp E, Helland M, Phillips G, Belousov V, Barr JT. International contact lens prescribing in 2006. Contact Lens Spectrum 2007; 22: 34–38.
   Google Scholar
• Jones L, Jones D, Langley C et al. Reactive or proactive contact lens fitting: does it make a difference? J Br Contact Lens Assoc 1996; 19: 41–43.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett ES. Bifocal and multifocal contact lenses. In: Phillips AJ, Speedwell L, eds. Contact Lens Practice, 5th ed. Oxford: Butterworth‐Heinemann, 2006. p 311–331.
   Google Scholar
• Pujol J, Gispets J, Arjona M. Optical performance in eyes wearing two multifocal contact lens designs. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2003; 23: 347–360.
   Web of Science ®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
• Martin DK, Dain SJ. Postural modifications of VDU operators wearing bifocal spectacles. Appl Ergonom 1988; 19: 293–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afanador AJ, Aitsemaomo P, Gertzman DR. Eye and head contribution to gaze at near through multifocals: the useable field of view. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1986; 63: 187–192.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Toit Du, Situ P, Simpson T, Fonn D. 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young G, Veys J, Pritchard N, Coleman S. A multi‐centre study of lapsed contact lens wearers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2002; 22: 516–527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen DW. Current concepts of RGP multifocal contact lenses. Practical Optom 1992; 3: 70–78.
   Google Scholar
• Andres S, Henriques A, Garcia ML, Valero J, Valls O 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, Schwartz CA. Bifocal contact lenses. In Bennett ES, Henry VA, eds. Clinical Manual of Contact Lenses, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000. p 410–449.
   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 ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Science, 2004. p 324–356.
   Google Scholar
• Hamano T, Mitsunaga S, Kotani S, Hamano T, Hamano K, Hamano H, Sakamoto R, Tamura H. Tear volume in relation to contact lens wear and age. CLAO J 1990; 16: 57–61.
   Google Scholar
• Sakamoto R, Bennett ES, Henry VA, Paragina S, Narumi T, Izumi Y, Kamei Y, Nagatomi E, Miyanaga Y, Hamano H, Mitsunaga S. The phenol red thread test: a cross‐cultural study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993; 34: 3510–3514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Josephson JE, Caffery BE. Hydrogel bifocal lenses. In: Bennett ES, Weissman BA, eds. Clinical Contact Lens Practice. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott, 1990. p 43–1 to 43–20.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett ES, Weissman BA, Remba MR. Contact lenses and the older adult. In: Rosenbloom AA, ed. Rosenbloom & Morgan's Vision and Aging, 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier, 2007. p 215–240.
   Google Scholar
• Fonda G. Presbyopia corrected with single vision spectacles or corneal lenses in preference to bifocal corneal lenses. Trans Ophthalmol Soc Aust 1966: XXV: 46–50.
   Google Scholar
• Harris MG, Kuntz S, Morris C, Zardo DF. Use of presbyopic contact lens corrections in optometric practices. Contact Lens Spectrum 2005; 20: 42–46.
   Google Scholar
• Westin E, Wick B, Harrist RB. Factors influencing success of monovision contact lens fitting: survey of contact lens diplomates. Optometry 2000; 71: 757–763.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jain S, Arora I, Azar DT. Success of monovision in presbyopes: review of the literature and potential applications to refractive surgery. Surv Ophthalmol 1996; 40: 491–499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins MJ, Goode A. Interocular blur suppression and monovision. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1994; 72: 376–380.
   Google Scholar
• Gasson A, Morris J. Lenses for presbyopia. In: Gasset A, Morris J, eds. The Contact Lens Manual, 3rd ed. London: Butterworth‐Heinemann, 2003. p 298–317.
   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
• Heath DA, Hines C, Schwartz F. Suppression behavior 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
• Collins MJ, Goode A, Brown B. Distance visual acuity and monovision. Optom Vis Sci 1993; 70: 723–728.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loshin DS, Loshin MS, Comer G. Binocular summation with monovision contact lens correction for presbyopia. Int Contact Lens Clin 1982; 9: 161–165.
   Google Scholar
• Collins MJ, Brown B, Bowman KJ. Contrast sensitivity with contact lens correction for presbyopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1989; 9: 133–138.
   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
• Wick B, Westin E. Change in refractive anisometropia in presbyopic adults wearing monovision contact lens correction. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76: 33–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood JM. Aging, driving and vision. Clin Exp Optom 2002; 85: 214–220.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Josephson JE, Caffery BE. Monovision versus aspheric bifocal contact lenses: a crossover study. J Am Optom Assoc 1987; 58: 652–654.
   Google Scholar
• Johannsdottir KR, Stelmach LB. Monovision: a review of the scientific literature. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78: 646–651.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen DW. It's time to minimize monovision. Contact Lens Spectrum 2001: 16: 15.
   Google Scholar
• Wood JM, Wick K, Shuley V, Pearce B, Evans D. The effect of monovision contact lens wear on driving performance. Clin Exp Optom 1998; 81: 100–103.
   Google Scholar
• Harris MG, Classe JG. Clinicolegal considerations of monovision. J Am Optom Assoc 1988; 59: 491–495.
   Google Scholar
• Nakagawara VB, Veronneau SJH. Monovision contact lens use in the aviation environment: a report of a contact lens‐related aircraft accident. Optometry 2000; 71: 390–395.
   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
• Davis RL. Pinpoint success with GP multifocal lenses. Contact Lens Spectrum 2003; 18: 25–38.
   Google Scholar
• Mcgill EC, Erickson P. Sighting dominance and monovision distance binocular fusional ranges. J Am Optom Assoc 1991; 62: 738–742.
   Google Scholar
• Macalister GO, Woods CA. Monovision versus RGP translating bifocals. J Br Contact Lens Assoc 1991; 14: 173–178.
   Google Scholar
• Du toit R, Ferreira JT, Nel ZJ. Visual and nonvisual variables implicated in monovision wear. Optom Vis Sci 1998; 75: 119–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erickson DB, Erickson P. Psychological factors and sex differences in acceptance of monovision. Percept Mot Skills 2000; 91 (3 Part 2): 1113–1119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hom MM. Monovision and bifocals. In: Hom MM, ed. Manual of Contact Lens Fitting and Prescribing with CD‐ROM, 2nd ed. Boston: Butterworth‐Heinemann, 2000. p 327–354.
   Google Scholar
• Barr JT. Contact lenses 2006. Contact Lens Spectrum 2007; 22: 26–33.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett ES, Hansen D, Baker R. GPs and presbyopia: Why today's designs are easier to fit. Rev Optom 2003; 140: 43–46.
   Google Scholar
• Lieblein JS. Finding success with multifocal contact lenses. Contact Lens Spectrum 2000; 14: 50–51.
   Google Scholar
• Byrnes SP, Cannella A. An in‐office evaluation of a multifocal RGP lens design. Contact Lens Spectrum 1999; 14: 29–33.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson G. A GP bifocal for active presbyopes. Optom Management 2003; 38:74.
   Google Scholar
• Smith VM, Koffler BH, Litteral G. Evaluation of the ZEBRA 2000 (Z10) Breger Vision bifocal contact lens. CLAO J 2000; 26: 214–220.
   Google Scholar
• Bierman A. Beyond monovision. Optom Management 2003; 38: 70.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen DW. Advanced multifocal fitting and management. Contact Lens Spectrum 1999; 14: 25–33.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen DW. RGP bifocals and computer users: the real world. Contact Lens Spectrum 1996; 11: 15.
   Google Scholar
• Ames K. Fitting the presbyope with gas permeable contact lenses. Contact Lens Spectrum 2001; 16: 42–45.
   Google Scholar
• Woods C, Ruston D, Hough T, Efron N. Clinical performance of an innovative back surface multifocal contact lens in correcting presbyopia. CLAO J 1999; 25: 176–181.
   Google Scholar
• Businger U, Byrnes S, Baker R. An RGP multifocal for moderate to high presbyopes. http://www.clspectrum.com/article.aspx?article=12035. October, 2000 (accessed October, 2007).
   Google Scholar
• Hansen DW. Multifocal contact lenses: the next generation. Contact Lens Spectrum 2002; 17: 42–48.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett ES, Luk B. Rigid gas permeable bifocal contact lenses: an update. Optom Today 2001;15: 34–36.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett ES. Researching GP multifocals. Contact Lens Spectrum 2005; 20. Available at URL: http://www.clspectrum.com/article.aspx?article=12747.
   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
• Rigel LE. What to expect from the Acuvue bifocal. Optom Today 1998; 6: 26–27.
   Google Scholar
• Lee WC. Factors for fitting success. Contact Lens Spectrum 1999; 14: 10: 7a.
   Google Scholar
• Ardaya D, Devuono G, Lin I, Neutgens A, Bergenske P, Caroline P, Smythe J. The effect of add power on distance vision with the Acuvue bifocal contact lens. Optometry 2004; 75: 169–174.
   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
• Iravani N. New multifocal offers best of both worlds. Contact Lens Spectrum 2002; 17 (suppl): 2–5.
   Google Scholar
• Quinn TG. Making sense of frequent replacement soft multifocals. Contact Lens Spectrum 2002; 17: 17.
   Google Scholar
• Wan L. Take some frustration out of multifocal fitting. Contact Lens Spectrum 2003; 18: 42–44.
   Google Scholar
• Kovacich S. Know your soft bifocal lens options. Contact Lens Spectrum 2006; 21: 33–38.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit DP. Multifocal contact lens update. Contact Lens Spectrum 2001; 16: 26–32.
   Google Scholar
• Shovlin JP. Extended wear for presbyopes? Rev Optom 2002; 139: 55.
   Google Scholar
• Quinn TG. The monovision vs. multifocal debate. Contact Lens Spectrum 2002; 17: 19.
   Google Scholar
• Ezekiel DF. A ‘genuinely’ new bifocal lens design. Optom Today 2002; 17: 34–35.
   Google Scholar
• Celia F. Multifocal contacts make headway. Rev Optom 2006; 143: 38–43.
   Google Scholar
• Kirman St, Kirman GS. The Tangent Streak bifocal contact lens. Contact Lens Forum 1988; 13: 38–40.
   Google Scholar
• Remba MJ. The Tangent Streak rigid gas permeable bifocal contact lens. J Am Optom Assoc 1988; 59: 212–216.
   Google Scholar
• Harris MG, Sheedy JE, Gan CM. Vision and task performance with monovision and diffractive bifocal contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1992; 69: 609–614.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Back A, Grant T, Hine N. Comparative visual performance of three presbyopic contact lens corrections. Optom Vis Sci 1992; 69: 474–480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Situ P, Du toit R, Fonn D, Simpson T. Successful monovision contact lens wearers refitted into bifocal contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2003; 29: 181–184.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson J, Bennett ES, Henry VA, Henderson B. MultiVision vs. monovision: a comparative study. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, February, 2000; Las Vegas, NV.
   Google Scholar