Eye & contact lens · 2022
Visual Performance and Binocular/Accommodative Function of S.T.O.P. Contact Lenses Compared With MiSight.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Tilia Daniel, Diec Jennie, Ehrmann Klaus, Falk Darrin, Fedtke Cathleen, Conrad Fabian, Wu Richard, Bakaraju Ravi C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the visual performance and binocular/accommodative function of two novel S.T.O.P. design (F2 and DT) contact lenses against MiSight when worn by myopic, young adults.
METHOD: This was a prospective, randomized, cross-over, single-masked study. Each lens was worn daily wear with overnight peroxide disinfection for approximately 7 days. Visual performance was assessed with subjective ratings (0-100): clarity of vision and lack of ghosting (far away, intermediate, and near), vision when driving, overall vision satisfaction, and with monocular high-contrast and low-contrast visual acuity (HCVA/LCVA) at 6 m, binocular HCVA (6 m, 70 cm, 50 cm, and 40 cm), binocular LCVA (6 m and 70 cm). Binocular function was assessed with heterophorias (3 m and 40 cm). Accommodative function was assessed with monocular accommodative facility (AF: 40 cm) and dynamic monocular accommodative response (AR: 6 m, 70 cm, and 40 cm).
RESULTS: F2 was rated higher than MiSight for clarity of vision (near and intermediate) and lack-of-ghosting ( P <0.001), while MiSight was rated higher than DT for clarity of vision (near, P <0.001). MiSight was better than F2 and DT for monocular HCVA (6 m) and binocular HCVA (6 m and 40 cm, P ≤0.02), but the maximum difference was ≤2 letters. There were no differences between designs for heterophoria ( P =0.61) nor were there any differences between DT and MiSight for any accommodative measure ( P >0.1). F2 was higher for monocular-AF ( P =0.007) and lower for AR (70 cm and 40 cm; P ≤0.007) compared with MiSight.
CONCLUSIONS: The visual performance and binocular/accommodative function of S.T.O.P. designs F2 and DT were comparable with MiSight. F2 outperformed MiSight in some aspects of subjective visual performance and monocular accommodative function.
METHOD: This was a prospective, randomized, cross-over, single-masked study. Each lens was worn daily wear with overnight peroxide disinfection for approximately 7 days. Visual performance was assessed with subjective ratings (0-100): clarity of vision and lack of ghosting (far away, intermediate, and near), vision when driving, overall vision satisfaction, and with monocular high-contrast and low-contrast visual acuity (HCVA/LCVA) at 6 m, binocular HCVA (6 m, 70 cm, 50 cm, and 40 cm), binocular LCVA (6 m and 70 cm). Binocular function was assessed with heterophorias (3 m and 40 cm). Accommodative function was assessed with monocular accommodative facility (AF: 40 cm) and dynamic monocular accommodative response (AR: 6 m, 70 cm, and 40 cm).
RESULTS: F2 was rated higher than MiSight for clarity of vision (near and intermediate) and lack-of-ghosting ( P <0.001), while MiSight was rated higher than DT for clarity of vision (near, P <0.001). MiSight was better than F2 and DT for monocular HCVA (6 m) and binocular HCVA (6 m and 40 cm, P ≤0.02), but the maximum difference was ≤2 letters. There were no differences between designs for heterophoria ( P =0.61) nor were there any differences between DT and MiSight for any accommodative measure ( P >0.1). F2 was higher for monocular-AF ( P =0.007) and lower for AR (70 cm and 40 cm; P ≤0.007) compared with MiSight.
CONCLUSIONS: The visual performance and binocular/accommodative function of S.T.O.P. designs F2 and DT were comparable with MiSight. F2 outperformed MiSight in some aspects of subjective visual performance and monocular accommodative function.