Kazunori Hirasawa1, Hikaru Ito1, Yukari Ohori1, Yui Takano1, Nobuyuki Shoji2. 1. Department of Orthoptics and Visual Science, School of Allied Health Sciences, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 252-0374, Japan. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, School of medicine, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 252-0374, Japan.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the refractive correction for standard automated perimetry (SAP) in eyes with refractive multifocal contact lenses (CL) in healthy young participants. METHODS: Twenty-nine eyes of 29 participants were included. Accommodation was paralyzed in all participants with 1% cyclopentolate hydrochloride. SAP was performed using the Humphrey SITA-standard 24-2 and 10-2 protocol under three refractive conditions: monofocal CL corrected for near distance (baseline); multifocal CL corrected for distance (mCL-D); and mCL-D corrected for near vision using a spectacle lens (mCL-N). Primary outcome measures were the foveal threshold, mean deviation (MD), and pattern standard deviation (PSD). RESULTS: The foveal threshold of mCL-N with both the 24-2 and 10-2 protocols significantly decreased by 2.2-2.5 dB (P<0.001), while that of mCL-D with the 24-2 protocol significantly decreased by 1.5 dB (P=0.0427), as compared with that of baseline. Although there was no significant difference between the MD of baseline and mCL-D with the 24-2 and 10-2 protocols, the MD of mCL-N was significantly decreased by 1.0-1.3 dB (P<0.001) as compared with that of both baseline and mCL-D, with both 24-2 and 10-2 protocols. There was no significant difference in the PSD among the three refractive conditions with both the 24-2 and 10-2 protocols. CONCLUSION: Despite the induced mydriasis and the optical design of the multifocal lens used in this study, our results indicated that, when the dome-shaped visual field test is performed with eyes with large pupils and wearing refractive multifocal CLs, distance correction without additional near correction is to be recommended.
AIM: To evaluate the refractive correction for standard automated perimetry (SAP) in eyes with refractive multifocal contact lenses (CL) in healthy young participants. METHODS: Twenty-nine eyes of 29 participants were included. Accommodation was paralyzed in all participants with 1% cyclopentolate hydrochloride. SAP was performed using the Humphrey SITA-standard 24-2 and 10-2 protocol under three refractive conditions: monofocal CL corrected for near distance (baseline); multifocal CL corrected for distance (mCL-D); and mCL-D corrected for near vision using a spectacle lens (mCL-N). Primary outcome measures were the foveal threshold, mean deviation (MD), and pattern standard deviation (PSD). RESULTS: The foveal threshold of mCL-N with both the 24-2 and 10-2 protocols significantly decreased by 2.2-2.5 dB (P<0.001), while that of mCL-D with the 24-2 protocol significantly decreased by 1.5 dB (P=0.0427), as compared with that of baseline. Although there was no significant difference between the MD of baseline and mCL-D with the 24-2 and 10-2 protocols, the MD of mCL-N was significantly decreased by 1.0-1.3 dB (P<0.001) as compared with that of both baseline and mCL-D, with both 24-2 and 10-2 protocols. There was no significant difference in the PSD among the three refractive conditions with both the 24-2 and 10-2 protocols. CONCLUSION: Despite the induced mydriasis and the optical design of the multifocal lens used in this study, our results indicated that, when the dome-shaped visual field test is performed with eyes with large pupils and wearing refractive multifocal CLs, distance correction without additional near correction is to be recommended.
Entities:
Keywords:
intraocular lens; multifocal contact lens; refractive correction; standard automated perimetry; visual field
Authors: Jay S Pepose; Mujtaba A Qazi; James Davies; John F Doane; James C Loden; Varunan Sivalingham; Ashraf M Mahmoud Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-07-25 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Robert Montés-Micó; Enrique España; Inmaculada Bueno; W Neil Charman; José L Menezo Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 12.079