Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association · 2015
Low toric soft contact lens acceptance study.
СтатьяПоддержка 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.
Gaib Sara N, Vasudevan Balamurali
Аннотация
PURPOSE: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: ANOVA revealed that, at the morning visit (AM), high contrast logMAR distance visual acuity (HCDVA) was significantly better (p<0.01) 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 (p<0.01) 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 (p>0.05) in subjective vision rating scores was noted between SL and TL.
CONCLUSIONS: The present investigation found no clinically significant difference in visual performance between spherical and toric soft contact lenses in low astigmats.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: ANOVA revealed that, at the morning visit (AM), high contrast logMAR distance visual acuity (HCDVA) was significantly better (p<0.01) 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 (p<0.01) 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 (p>0.05) in subjective vision rating scores was noted between SL and TL.
CONCLUSIONS: The present investigation found no clinically significant difference in visual performance between spherical and toric soft contact lenses in low astigmats.