Literature DB >> 17471352

The effect of different monovision contact lens powers on the visual function of emmetropic presbyopic patients (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis).

Daniel S Durrie1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of three increasing powers of monovision contact lenses on both objective and subjective vision in emmetropic presbyopic patients.
METHODS: A prospective single-center study was conducted on 50 emmetropic presbyopic patients with a mean age of 55.4 +/- 4.3 years (range, 50 to 66). Each patient wore for 1 week a +0.75 D, +1.50 D, and +2.50 D contact lens in the nondominant eye. Objective testing after each week included near and distance visual acuity, distance stereopsis, distance contrast sensitivity, and measurement with two different aberrometers of spherical equivalent, defocus, spherical aberration, and total higher-order aberrations. Subjective testing included questionnaire responses regarding vision under various conditions after 1 week with each lens power. Statistical tests were performed to determine significant differences from pretreatment.
RESULTS: Binocularly, mean uncorrected near visual acuity increased in both eyes (P < .01) with each increase in contact lens power. Monocular distance vision decreased significantly with each increasing lens power, but binocular distance vision remained unchanged from pretreatment. Distance stereopsis decreased significantly with increasing contact lens powers (P < .01 with the +2.50 D lens power). Photopic and mesopic distance contrast sensitivity decreased significantly with progressive increase in power. Wavefront analysis showed a change in defocus in the myopic direction, but no increase in higher-order aberrations.
CONCLUSIONS: In emmetropic presbyopes, near vision improved with increased lens power, but distance vision was degraded objectively and subjectively. The +1.50 D power provided optimal near and distance vision for monovision contact lens wear, as measured by a patient questionnaire and a series of eight tests for evaluating various aspects of visual function. The objective and subjective tests used in this study will provide a baseline for evaluation of surgical procedures performed for near vision enhancement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17471352      PMCID: PMC1809906     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc        ISSN: 0065-9533


  43 in total

Review 1.  Correction of presbyopia with the excimer laser.

Authors:  D Epstein; P Vinciguerra; B E Frueh
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol Clin       Date:  2001

Review 2.  Monovision and LASIK.

Authors:  M M Hom
Journal:  J Am Optom Assoc       Date:  1999-02

3.  Effects of sighting and sensory dominance on monovision high and low contrast visual acuity.

Authors:  M W Robboy; I G Cox; P Erickson
Journal:  CLAO J       Date:  1990 Oct-Dec

4.  Effect of induced blur on visual acuity and stereoacuity.

Authors:  W L Larson; M Bolduc
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 1.973

5.  Sighting dominance and monovision distance binocular fusional ranges.

Authors:  E C McGill; P Erickson
Journal:  J Am Optom Assoc       Date:  1991-10

6.  Clinical evaluation of the model AT-45 silicone accommodating intraocular lens: results of feasibility and the initial phase of a Food and Drug Administration clinical trial.

Authors:  J S Cumming; S G Slade; A Chayet
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 12.079

7.  Stereopsis in presbyopes wearing monovision and simultaneous vision bifocal contact lenses.

Authors:  E McGill; P Erickson
Journal:  Am J Optom Physiol Opt       Date:  1988-08

8.  Interocular blur suppression and monovision.

Authors:  M J Collins; A Goode
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh)       Date:  1994-06

9.  Laser in situ keratomileusis monovision.

Authors:  D B Goldberg
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 3.351

10.  Objective quality of vision in presbyopic and non-presbyopic patients after pseudoaccommodative advanced surface ablation.

Authors:  Roberto Cantú; Marco A Rosales; Eduardo Tepichín; Andrée Curioca; Víctor Montes; J Gustavo Ramirez-Zavaleta
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2005 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.573

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  [Accommodation and presbyopia : part 2: surgical procedures for the correction of presbyopia].

Authors:  M Baumeister; T Kohnen
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  [Effect of intrastromal correction of presbyopia with femtosecond laser (INTRACOR) on mesopic contrast sensitivity].

Authors:  A Fitting; N Menassa; G U Auffarth; M P Holzer
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.059

3.  Stereoacuity after small aperture corneal inlay implantation.

Authors:  Steven H Linn; David F Skanchy; Tyler S Quist; Jordan D Desautels; Majid Moshirfar
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-01-24

4.  Comparison of a hydrogel corneal inlay and monovision laser in situ keratomileusis in presbyopic patients: focus on visual performance and optical quality.

Authors:  Cornelis Verdoorn
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-09-20
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.