Search

The aim of the study was to evaluate the objective and subjective visual performance of custom toric contact lenses (TL) and their spherical off-the-shelf counterparts (SL) in subjects with low amounts of astigmatism.Twenty-three habitual soft lens wearers (40 eyes, 25-35 years) manifesting 0.50-1.00DC and ≤±3.00DS were recruited. Air Optix Aqua (Lotrafilcon B) was fit using the spherical equivalent of the manifest refraction. Intelliwave toric in Efrofilcon A (Definitive) was fit using the manifest refraction and keratometric data. Comprehensive visual performance tests were done through manifest refraction in a trial frame; in SL; and in TL. A subjective evaluation of quality of vision was also obtained.ANOVA revealed that, at the morning visit (AM), high contrast logMAR distance visual acuity (HCDVA) was significantly better (p0.01) in spectacles as compared to SL. A similar trend was noted at the afternoon visit (PM). In addition, at the PM visit, HCDVA was significantly better (p0.01) for TL as compared to their SL. ANOVA revealed that, at the PM visit, low contrast distance visual acuity (LCDVA) was significantly better (p=0.05) in spectacles as compared to SL. None of these differences were clinically significant. In addition, no statistically significant difference (p0.05) in subjective vision rating scores was noted between SL and TL.The present investigation found no clinically significant difference in visual performance between spherical and toric soft contact lenses in low astigmats.

Purpose The aim of the present study was to compare the objective and subjective visual performance of three different soft multifocal contact lenses. Methods 10 subjects (habitual soft contact lens wearers) between the ages of 40 and 45 years participated in the study. Three different multifocal silicone hydrogel contact lenses (Acuvue Oasys, Air Optix and Biofinity) were fit within the same visit. All the lenses were fit according to the manufacturers’ recommendation using the respective fitting guide. Visual performance tests included low and high contrast distance and near visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, range of clear vision and through-focus curve. Objective visual performance tests included measurement of open field accommodative response at different defocus levels and optical aberrations at different viewing distances. Results Accommodative response was not significantly different between the three types of multifocal contact lenses at each of the accommodative stimulus levels (p > 0.05). Accommodative lag increased for higher stimulus levels for all 3 types of contact lenses. Ocular aberrations were not significantly different between these 3 contact lens designs at each of the different viewing distances (p > 0.05). In addition, optical aberrations did not significantly differ between different viewing distances for any of these lenses (p > 0.05). ANOVA revealed no significant difference in high and low contrast distance visual acuity as well as near visual acuity and contrast sensitivity function between the 3 multifocal contact lenses and spectacles (p > 0.05). Conclusions There was no statistically significant difference in accommodative response, optical aberrations or visual performance between the 3 multifocal contact lenses in early presbyopes.