PURPOSE: This study investigated how aberration-controlling, customised soft contact lenses corrected higher-order ocular aberrations and visual performance in keratoconic patients compared to other forms of refractive correction (spectacles and rigid gas-permeable lenses). METHODS: Twenty-two patients (16 rigid gas-permeable contact lens wearers and six spectacle wearers) were fitted with standard toric soft lenses and customised lenses (designed to correct 3rd-order coma aberrations). In the rigid gas-permeable lens-wearing patients, ocular aberrations were measured without lenses, with the patient's habitual lenses and with the study lenses (Hartmann-Shack aberrometry). In the spectacle-wearing patients, ocular aberrations were measured both with and without the study lenses. LogMAR visual acuity (high-contrast and low-contrast) was evaluated with the patient wearing their habitual correction (of either spectacles or rigid gas-permeable contact lenses) and with the study lenses. RESULTS: In the contact lens wearers, the habitual rigid gas-permeable lenses and customised lenses provided significant reductions in 3rd-order coma root-mean-square (RMS) error, 3rd-order RMS and higher-order RMS error (p ≤ 0.004). In the spectacle wearers, the standard toric lenses and customised lenses significantly reduced 3rd-order RMS and higher-order RMS errors (p ≤ 0.005). The spectacle wearers showed no significant differences in visual performance measured between their habitual spectacles and the study lenses. However, in the contact lens wearers, the habitual rigid gas-permeable lenses and standard toric lenses provided significantly better high-contrast acuities compared to the customised lenses (p ≤ 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The customised lenses provided substantial reductions in ocular aberrations in these keratoconic patients; however, the poor visual performances achieved with these lenses are most likely to be due to small, on-eye lens decentrations.
PURPOSE: This study investigated how aberration-controlling, customised soft contact lenses corrected higher-order ocular aberrations and visual performance in keratoconic patients compared to other forms of refractive correction (spectacles and rigid gas-permeable lenses). METHODS: Twenty-two patients (16 rigid gas-permeable contact lens wearers and six spectacle wearers) were fitted with standard toric soft lenses and customised lenses (designed to correct 3rd-order coma aberrations). In the rigid gas-permeable lens-wearing patients, ocular aberrations were measured without lenses, with the patient's habitual lenses and with the study lenses (Hartmann-Shack aberrometry). In the spectacle-wearing patients, ocular aberrations were measured both with and without the study lenses. LogMAR visual acuity (high-contrast and low-contrast) was evaluated with the patient wearing their habitual correction (of either spectacles or rigid gas-permeable contact lenses) and with the study lenses. RESULTS: In the contact lens wearers, the habitual rigid gas-permeable lenses and customised lenses provided significant reductions in 3rd-order coma root-mean-square (RMS) error, 3rd-order RMS and higher-order RMS error (p ≤ 0.004). In the spectacle wearers, the standard toric lenses and customised lenses significantly reduced 3rd-order RMS and higher-order RMS errors (p ≤ 0.005). The spectacle wearers showed no significant differences in visual performance measured between their habitual spectacles and the study lenses. However, in the contact lens wearers, the habitual rigid gas-permeable lenses and standard toric lenses provided significantly better high-contrast acuities compared to the customised lenses (p ≤ 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The customised lenses provided substantial reductions in ocular aberrations in these keratoconic patients; however, the poor visual performances achieved with these lenses are most likely to be due to small, on-eye lens decentrations.
Authors: Gareth D Hastings; Raymond A Applegate; Lan Chi Nguyen; Matthew J Kauffman; Roxana T Hemmati; Jason D Marsack Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Gareth D Hastings; Julianna Z Zanayed; Lan Chi Nguyen; Raymond A Applegate; Jason D Marsack Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 2.106