Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022
Short-term tear film stability, optical quality and visual performance in two dual-focus contact lenses for myopia control with different optical designs.
СтатьяРандомизированное 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-Marqués José Vicente, Macedo-De-Araújo Rute Juliana, McAlinden Colm, Faria-Ribeiro Miguel, Cerviño Alejandro, González-Méijome José Manuel
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess and compare short-term visual and optical quality and tear film stability between two dual-focus (DF) prototype myopia control contact lenses (CLs) having different inner zone diameters.
METHODS: Twenty-eight myopic subjects were included in this randomised, double-masked crossover study. Refraction, best-corrected visual acuity (VA) and tear film stability were measured at baseline (i.e., when uncorrected). Subjects were then binocularly fitted with the DF CLs, with only the sensorial dominant eye being assessed. Lenses were of the same material and had inner zone diameters of either 2.1 mm (S design) or 4.0 mm (M design). Visual and physical short-term lens comfort, over-refraction, best-corrected VA, stereopsis at 40 cm, best-corrected photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity (CS), size and shape of light disturbance (LD), wavefront aberrations, subjective quality of vision (QoV Questionnaire) and tear film stability were measured for each lens.
RESULTS: Both CL designs decreased tear film stability compared with baseline (p < 0.05). VA and photopic CS were within normal values for the subjects' age with each CL. When comparing lenses, the M design promoted better photopic CS for the 18 cycles per degree spatial frequency (p < 0.001) and better LD (p < 0.02). However, higher-order aberrations were improved with the S design (p = 0.02). No significant difference between the two CLs was found for QoV scores and tear film stability.
CONCLUSIONS: Both DF CLs provided acceptable visual performance under photopic conditions. The 4.0 mm inner zone gave better contrast sensitivity at high frequencies and lower light disturbance, while the 2.1 mm central diameter induced fewer higher-order aberrations for a 5 mm pupil diameter. Both CLs produced the same subjective visual short-term lens comfort.
METHODS: Twenty-eight myopic subjects were included in this randomised, double-masked crossover study. Refraction, best-corrected visual acuity (VA) and tear film stability were measured at baseline (i.e., when uncorrected). Subjects were then binocularly fitted with the DF CLs, with only the sensorial dominant eye being assessed. Lenses were of the same material and had inner zone diameters of either 2.1 mm (S design) or 4.0 mm (M design). Visual and physical short-term lens comfort, over-refraction, best-corrected VA, stereopsis at 40 cm, best-corrected photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity (CS), size and shape of light disturbance (LD), wavefront aberrations, subjective quality of vision (QoV Questionnaire) and tear film stability were measured for each lens.
RESULTS: Both CL designs decreased tear film stability compared with baseline (p < 0.05). VA and photopic CS were within normal values for the subjects' age with each CL. When comparing lenses, the M design promoted better photopic CS for the 18 cycles per degree spatial frequency (p < 0.001) and better LD (p < 0.02). However, higher-order aberrations were improved with the S design (p = 0.02). No significant difference between the two CLs was found for QoV scores and tear film stability.
CONCLUSIONS: Both DF CLs provided acceptable visual performance under photopic conditions. The 4.0 mm inner zone gave better contrast sensitivity at high frequencies and lower light disturbance, while the 2.1 mm central diameter induced fewer higher-order aberrations for a 5 mm pupil diameter. Both CLs produced the same subjective visual short-term lens comfort.