PURPOSE: To assess the effect of bifocal soft contact lenses on the accommodative errors (lags) of young adults. Recent studies suggest that bifocal soft contact lenses are an effective myopia control treatment although the underlying mechanism is not understood. METHODS: Accommodation responses were measured for four target distances: 100, 50, 33 and 25 cm in 35 young adult subjects (10 emmetropes and 25 myopes; mean age, 22.8 +/- 2.5 years). Measurements were made under both monocular and binocular conditions with three types of lenses: single vision distance soft contact lenses (SVD), single vision near soft contact lenses (SVN; +1.50 D added to the distance prescription) and bifocal soft contact lenses (BF; +1.50 D add). RESULTS: For the SVD lenses, all subjects exhibited lags of accommodation, with myopes accommodating significantly less than emmetropes for the 100 and 50 cm target distances (p < 0.05). With the SVN lenses, there was no significant difference in accommodative responses between emmetropes and myopes. With the BF lenses, both emmetropic and myopic groups exhibited leads in accommodation for all target distances, with emmetropes showing significantly greater leads for all distances (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, myopes tended to accommodate less than emmetropes, irrespective of the contact lens type, which significantly affected accommodation for both groups. The apparent over-accommodation of myopes when wearing the BF contact lenses may explain the reported efficacy as a myopia control treatment, although further studies are required to elucidate the mechanism underlying this accommodative effect.
PURPOSE: To assess the effect of bifocal soft contact lenses on the accommodative errors (lags) of young adults. Recent studies suggest that bifocal soft contact lenses are an effective myopia control treatment although the underlying mechanism is not understood. METHODS: Accommodation responses were measured for four target distances: 100, 50, 33 and 25 cm in 35 young adult subjects (10 emmetropes and 25 myopes; mean age, 22.8 +/- 2.5 years). Measurements were made under both monocular and binocular conditions with three types of lenses: single vision distance soft contact lenses (SVD), single vision near soft contact lenses (SVN; +1.50 D added to the distance prescription) and bifocal soft contact lenses (BF; +1.50 D add). RESULTS: For the SVD lenses, all subjects exhibited lags of accommodation, with myopes accommodating significantly less than emmetropes for the 100 and 50 cm target distances (p < 0.05). With the SVN lenses, there was no significant difference in accommodative responses between emmetropes and myopes. With the BF lenses, both emmetropic and myopic groups exhibited leads in accommodation for all target distances, with emmetropes showing significantly greater leads for all distances (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, myopes tended to accommodate less than emmetropes, irrespective of the contact lens type, which significantly affected accommodation for both groups. The apparent over-accommodation of myopes when wearing the BF contact lenses may explain the reported efficacy as a myopia control treatment, although further studies are required to elucidate the mechanism underlying this accommodative effect.
Authors: Han Cheng; Justin K Barnett; Abhiram S Vilupuru; Jason D Marsack; Sanjeev Kasthurirangan; Raymond A Applegate; Austin Roorda Journal: J Vis Date: 2004-04-16 Impact factor: 2.240
Authors: Jane Gwiazda; Leslie Hyman; Mohamed Hussein; Donald Everett; Thomas T Norton; Daniel Kurtz; M Cristina Leske; Ruth Manny; Wendy Marsh-Tootle; Mitch Scheiman Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Carly Siu Yin Lam; Wing Chun Tang; Hua Qi; Hema Radhakrishnan; Keigo Hasegawa; Chi Ho To; W Neil Charman Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 3.283