PURPOSE: To compare the visual performance of soft contact lenses and spectacles. METHODS:Twenty eyes of ten patients were examined. Each patient was fit with Acuvue, Cibasoft, and Biomedics contact lenses in random order. LogMar visual acuity and contrast sensitivity using the VectorVision CSV-1000 were measured. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in visual acuity between any contact lenses (P=.15). Contrast sensitivity at 12 cycles/degree was significantly lower for the Cibasoft lens compared to spectacles (P=.04). There was no significant difference between spectacles and contact lenses for remaining spatial frequencies (P=.07-.35). CONCLUSIONS:Visual acuity appears to be an insensitive method for evaluating soft contact lenses. The lathe-cut manufacturing process may be responsible for reduced visual function compared to cast-molded lenses. Further study in this area is needed.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the visual performance of soft contact lenses and spectacles. METHODS: Twenty eyes of ten patients were examined. Each patient was fit with Acuvue, Cibasoft, and Biomedics contact lenses in random order. LogMar visual acuity and contrast sensitivity using the VectorVision CSV-1000 were measured. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in visual acuity between any contact lenses (P=.15). Contrast sensitivity at 12 cycles/degree was significantly lower for the Cibasoft lens compared to spectacles (P=.04). There was no significant difference between spectacles and contact lenses for remaining spatial frequencies (P=.07-.35). CONCLUSIONS: Visual acuity appears to be an insensitive method for evaluating soft contact lenses. The lathe-cut manufacturing process may be responsible for reduced visual function compared to cast-molded lenses. Further study in this area is needed.