Comparative analysis of the visual performance and aberrometric outcomes with a new hybrid and two silicone hydrogel multifocal contact lenses: a pilot study
| dc.contributor.author | Piñero, David Pablo | |
| dc.contributor.author | Carracedo Rodríguez, Juan Gonzalo | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ruiz Fortes, Pedro | |
| dc.contributor.author | Pérez Cambrodí, Rafael José | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-06-18T05:41:58Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-06-18T05:41:58Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2015-09-01 | |
| dc.description | Submitted: 29 September 2014 / Revised: 13 January 2015 / Accepted for publication: 29 January 2015 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: The aim was to evaluate the visual performance achieved with a new multifocal hybrid contact lens and to compare it with that obtained with two other currently available multifocal soft contact lenses. Methods: This pilot prospective comparative study comprised a total of 16 presbyopic eyes of eight patients ranging in age from 43 to 58 years. All patients were fitted with three different models of multifocal contact lens: Duette multifocal (SynergEyes), Air Optix AQUA multifocal (Alcon) and Biofinity multifocal (CooperVision). Fittings were performed randomly in each patient according to a random number sequence, with a wash-out period between fittings of seven days. At two weeks post-fitting, visual, photopic contrast sensitivity and ocular aberrometry were evaluated. Results: No statistically significant differences were found in distance and near visual acuity achieved with the three different types of multifocal contact lens (p ≥ 0.05). Likewise, no significant differences between lenses were found in the monocular and binocular defocus curve (p ≥ 0.10). Concerning contrast sensitivity, better monocular contrast sensitivities for 6, 12 and 18 cycles per degree were found with the Duette and Air Optix multifocal compared to Biofinity (p = 0.02). Binocularly, differences between lenses were not significant (p ≥ 0.27). Furthermore, trefoil aberration was significantly higher with Biofinity multifocal (p < 0.01) and Air Optix (p = 0.01) multifocal compared to Duette. Conclusions: The Duette multifocal hybrid contact lens seems to provide similar visual quality outcomes in presbyopic patients with low corneal astigmatism, when compared with other soft multifocal contact lenses. This preliminary result should be confirmed in studies with larger samples. | |
| dc.description.department | Depto. de Optometría y Visión | |
| dc.description.faculty | Fac. de Óptica y Optometría | |
| dc.description.refereed | TRUE | |
| dc.description.status | pub | |
| dc.eprint.id | https://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/40886 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/cxo.12299 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0816-4622 | |
| dc.identifier.officialurl | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12299 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/23084 | |
| dc.issue.number | 5 | |
| dc.journal.title | Clinical and Experimental Optometry | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | |
| dc.page.final | 458 | |
| dc.page.initial | 451 | |
| dc.publisher | Wiley | |
| dc.rights.accessRights | restricted access | |
| dc.subject.cdu | 617.7-089.243 | |
| dc.subject.cdu | 681.7.066 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | Aberrations | |
| dc.subject.keyword | Contact lenses | |
| dc.subject.keyword | Contrast sensitivity | |
| dc.subject.keyword | Presbyopia | |
| dc.subject.ucm | Lentes de contacto | |
| dc.subject.ucm | Óptica oftálmica | |
| dc.subject.unesco | 3311.11 Instrumentos ópticos | |
| dc.title | Comparative analysis of the visual performance and aberrometric outcomes with a new hybrid and two silicone hydrogel multifocal contact lenses: a pilot study | |
| dc.type | journal article | |
| dc.volume.number | 98 | |
| dcterms.references | 1. World population ageing 2009 (Document ESA/P/WP/212, 2009). Division DoEaSAP, New York:United Nations, 2009. 2. Bennett ES. Contact lens correction of presbyopia.Clin Exp Optom 2008; 91: 265 –278. 3. Pujol J, Gispets J, Arjona M. Optical performance ineyes wearing two multifocal contact lens designs.Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2003; 23: 347–360. 4. Morgan PB, Efron N, Woods CA, International Con-tact Lens Prescribing Survey C. An internationalsurvey of contact lens prescribing for presbyopia.Clin Exp Optom 2011; 94: 87–92. 5. Hutnik CM, O’Hagan D. Multifocal contact lenses -look again! Can J Ophthalmol 1997; 32: 201–205. 6. Rajagopalan AS, Bennett ES, Lakshminarayanan V.Visual performance of subjects wearing presbyopiccontact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2006; 83: 611–615. 7. Chamberlain P, Morgan PB, Moody KJ, Maldonado-Codina C. Fluctuation in visual acuity during softtoric contact lens wear. Optom Vis Sci 2011; 88:E534–E538. 8. Madrid-Costa D, Tomas E, Ferrer-Blasco T, Garcia-Lazaro S, Montés-Micó R. Visual performance of amultifocal toric soft contact lens. Optom Vis Sci2012; 89: 1627–1635. 9. Efron N. Obituary--rigid contact lenses. Cont Lens AntEye 2010; 33: 245–252. 10. Pilskalns B, Fink BA, Hill RM. Oxygen demandswith hybrid contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84:334–342. 11. Montalbán R, Piñero DP, Javaloy J, Alió JL.Scheimpflug photography-based clinical characteri-zation of the correlation of the corneal shapebetween the anterior and posterior corneal surfacesin the normal human eye. J Cataract Refract Surg2012; 38: 1925–1933. 12. Pointer JS. Sighting versus sensory ocular domi-nance. JOptom2012;5:52–55. 13. Pomerance G, Evans D. Test-retest reliability of theCSV-1000 contrast test and its relationship to glau-coma therapy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994; 35:3357–3361. 14. Carracedo G, Gonzalez-Meijome JM, Lopes-FerreiraD, Carballo J, Batres L. Clinical performance of anew hybrid contact lens for keratoconus. Eye ContactLens 2014; 40: 2–6. 15. Hashemi H, Shaygan N, Asgari S, Rezvan F, Asgari S.ClearKone-Synergeyes or rigid gas-permeable con-tact lens in keratoconic patients: a clinical decision.Eye Contact Lens 2014; 40: 95–98. 16. Piñero DP, Pérez-Cambrodi RJ, Ruiz-Fortes P,Blanes-Mompó FJ. New-generation hybridcontact lens for the management of extreme irregu-larity in a thin cornea after unsuccessful excimerlaser refractive surgery. Eye Contact Lens2014; 40:e16–e20. 17. Montés-Micó R, Madrid-Costa D, Domínguez-VicentA, Belda-Salmerón L, Ferrer-Blasco T. In vitropower profiles of multifocal simultaneous visioncontact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2014; 37:162–167. 18. Plainis S, Atchison DA, Charman WN. Power profilesof multifocal contact lenses and their interpretation.Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 1066–1077. 19. Fernandes PR, Neves HI, Lopes-Ferreira DP, JorgeJM, González-Meijome JM. Adaptation to multifocaland monovision contact lens correction. Optom VisSci 2013; 90: 228–235. 20. Vasudevan B, Flores M, Gaib S. Objective andsubjective visual performance of multifocal contactlenses: Pilot study. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2014; 37:168–174. 21. Datiles MB, Gancayco T. Low myopia with lowastigmatic correction gives cataract surgery patientsgood depth of focus. Ophthalmology 1990; 97:922–926. 22. Huber C. Myopic astigmatism as a substitute foraccommodation in pseudophakia. Dev Ophthalmol1981;5:17–26. 23. Llorente-Guillemot A, García-Lazaro S, Ferrer-Blasco T, Perez-Cambrodi RJ, Cerviño A. Visualperformance with simultaneous vision multifocalcontact lenses. Clin Exp Optom 2012; 95: 54–59. 24. Montés-Micó R, Belda-Salmerón L, Ferrer-Blasco T,Albarrán-Diego C, García-Lázaro S. On-eye opticalquality of daily disposable contact lenses for differentwearing times. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2013; 33:581–591. 25. Lipson MJ, Musch DC. Synergeyes versus soft toriclenses: vision-related quality of life. Optom Vis Sci2007; 84: 593–597. | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| relation.isAuthorOfPublication | 97433353-d31b-4cf5-b2c0-47d2e6703fe5 | |
| relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery | 97433353-d31b-4cf5-b2c0-47d2e6703fe5 |
Download
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
- Name:
- Comparative analysis-2015-Clinical_and_Experimental_Optometry.pdf
- Size:
- 540.82 KB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format

