Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2012
Visual comparison of an artificial pupil contact lens to monovision.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
García-Lázaro Santiago, Ferrer-Blasco Teresa, Radhakrishnan Hema, Albarrán-Diego César, Montés-Micó Robert
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess and compare the effects of contact-lens based artificial pupil design and monovision correction on visual performance.
METHODS: In a cross-over study design, 22 presbyopic patients (age range 50 to 64 years) were evaluated using artificial pupil contact lens on the non-dominant eye and monovision. After 1 month, binocular distance visual acuity (BDVA), binocular near visual acuity (BNVA), defocus curve, binocular distance contrast sensitivity, binocular near contrast sensitivity, and stereoacuity were measured, under photopic conditions (85 cd/m2), in each patient after contact lens fitting. Moreover, BDVA and binocular distance contrast sensitivity were examined under mesopic conditions (5 cd/m2).
RESULTS: Average artificial pupil contact lens and monovision BDVA were 0.02 ± 0.04 and 0.00 ± 0.09 logMAR for photopic conditions, and 0.16 ± 0.06 and 0.13 ± 0.12 logMAR for binocular near visual acuity under mesopic conditions, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between the two types of lenses at distance for both lighting levels (p > 0.05), but there were, however, significant differences at intermediate distances and near vision (p < 0.05). Binocular distance contrast sensitivity revealed statistically significant differences between artificial pupil contact lens and monovision for 1.5 cycles per degree (cpd) under photopic conditions, and 12 and 18 cpd under mesopic conditions (p < 0.05), respectively. Statistically significant differences for all spatial frequencies except for 1.5 cpd were found at near vision (p < 0.05). The mean values of stereoacuity obtained for artificial pupil contact lens (221 ± 32 sec arc) were slightly worse than for monovision correction (210 ± 49 sec arc), and statistically significant differences were not found (p = 0.23).
CONCLUSIONS: Monovision performed better than an artificial pupil contact lens of the same material for near visual acuity and near contrast sensitivity. Only, the artificial pupil contact lens provides better intermediate visual acuity.
METHODS: In a cross-over study design, 22 presbyopic patients (age range 50 to 64 years) were evaluated using artificial pupil contact lens on the non-dominant eye and monovision. After 1 month, binocular distance visual acuity (BDVA), binocular near visual acuity (BNVA), defocus curve, binocular distance contrast sensitivity, binocular near contrast sensitivity, and stereoacuity were measured, under photopic conditions (85 cd/m2), in each patient after contact lens fitting. Moreover, BDVA and binocular distance contrast sensitivity were examined under mesopic conditions (5 cd/m2).
RESULTS: Average artificial pupil contact lens and monovision BDVA were 0.02 ± 0.04 and 0.00 ± 0.09 logMAR for photopic conditions, and 0.16 ± 0.06 and 0.13 ± 0.12 logMAR for binocular near visual acuity under mesopic conditions, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between the two types of lenses at distance for both lighting levels (p > 0.05), but there were, however, significant differences at intermediate distances and near vision (p < 0.05). Binocular distance contrast sensitivity revealed statistically significant differences between artificial pupil contact lens and monovision for 1.5 cycles per degree (cpd) under photopic conditions, and 12 and 18 cpd under mesopic conditions (p < 0.05), respectively. Statistically significant differences for all spatial frequencies except for 1.5 cpd were found at near vision (p < 0.05). The mean values of stereoacuity obtained for artificial pupil contact lens (221 ± 32 sec arc) were slightly worse than for monovision correction (210 ± 49 sec arc), and statistically significant differences were not found (p = 0.23).
CONCLUSIONS: Monovision performed better than an artificial pupil contact lens of the same material for near visual acuity and near contrast sensitivity. Only, the artificial pupil contact lens provides better intermediate visual acuity.