SIGNIFICANCE: Visual performance with wavefront-guided (WFG) contact lenses has only been reported immediately after manufacture without time for habituation, and comparison has only been made with clinically unrefined predicate conventional lenses. We present comparisons of habitual corrections, best conventional scleral lenses, and WFG scleral lenses after habituation to all corrections. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare, in a crossover design, optical and visual performance of eyes with corneal ectasias wearing dispensed best conventional scleral lens corrections and dispensed individualized WFG scleral lens corrections. METHODS:Ten subjects (20 eyes) participated in a randomized crossover study where best conventional scleral lenses and WFG scleral lenses (customized through the fifth radial order) were worn for 8 weeks each. These corrections, as well as each subject's habitual correction and normative data for normal eyes, were compared using (1) residual higher-order aberrations (HORMS), (2) visual acuity (VA), (3) letter contrast sensitivity (CS), and (4) visual image quality (logarithm of the visual Strehl ratio, or logVSX). Correlations were performed between Pentacam biometric measures and gains provided by WFG lenses. RESULTS:Mean HORMS was reduced by 48% from habitual to conventional and 43% from conventional to WFG. Mean logMAR VA improved from habitual (+0.12) to conventional (-0.03) and further with WFG (-0.09); six eyes gained greater than one line with WFG over conventional. Area under the CS curve improved by 26% from habitual to conventional and 14% from conventional to WFG. The percentage of the eyes achieving normal levels were as follows: HORMS, 40% for conventional and 85% for WFG; VA, 50% for conventional and 85% for WFG; and CS, 60% for conventional and 90% for WFG. logVSX improved by 16% from habitual to conventional and 25% further with WFG. Reduction in aberrations with WFG lenses best correlated with posterior cornea radius of curvature. CONCLUSIONS:Visual performance was superior to that reported with nonhabituated WFG lens wear. With WFG lenses, HORMS and logVSX significantly improved, allowing more eyes to reach normal levels of optical and visual performance compared with conventional lenses.
RCT Entities:
SIGNIFICANCE: Visual performance with wavefront-guided (WFG) contact lenses has only been reported immediately after manufacture without time for habituation, and comparison has only been made with clinically unrefined predicate conventional lenses. We present comparisons of habitual corrections, best conventional scleral lenses, and WFG scleral lenses after habituation to all corrections. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare, in a crossover design, optical and visual performance of eyes with corneal ectasias wearing dispensed best conventional scleral lens corrections and dispensed individualized WFG scleral lens corrections. METHODS: Ten subjects (20 eyes) participated in a randomized crossover study where best conventional scleral lenses and WFG scleral lenses (customized through the fifth radial order) were worn for 8 weeks each. These corrections, as well as each subject's habitual correction and normative data for normal eyes, were compared using (1) residual higher-order aberrations (HORMS), (2) visual acuity (VA), (3) letter contrast sensitivity (CS), and (4) visual image quality (logarithm of the visual Strehl ratio, or logVSX). Correlations were performed between Pentacam biometric measures and gains provided by WFG lenses. RESULTS: Mean HORMS was reduced by 48% from habitual to conventional and 43% from conventional to WFG. Mean logMAR VA improved from habitual (+0.12) to conventional (-0.03) and further with WFG (-0.09); six eyes gained greater than one line with WFG over conventional. Area under the CS curve improved by 26% from habitual to conventional and 14% from conventional to WFG. The percentage of the eyes achieving normal levels were as follows: HORMS, 40% for conventional and 85% for WFG; VA, 50% for conventional and 85% for WFG; and CS, 60% for conventional and 90% for WFG. logVSX improved by 16% from habitual to conventional and 25% further with WFG. Reduction in aberrations with WFG lenses best correlated with posterior cornea radius of curvature. CONCLUSIONS: Visual performance was superior to that reported with nonhabituated WFG lens wear. With WFG lenses, HORMS and logVSX significantly improved, allowing more eyes to reach normal levels of optical and visual performance compared with conventional lenses.
Authors: Pablo Artal; Li Chen; Enrique J Fernández; Ben Singer; Silvestre Manzanera; David R Williams Journal: J Vis Date: 2004-04-16 Impact factor: 2.240
Authors: Lan Chi Nguyen; Gareth D Hastings; Matthew J Kauffman; Raymond A Applegate; Jason D Marsack Journal: Cont Lens Anterior Eye Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Gareth D Hastings; Raymond A Applegate; Alexander W Schill; Chuan Hu; Daniel R Coates; Jason D Marsack Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Muriel M Schornack; Jennifer Fogt; Amy Nau; Cherie B Nau; Jennifer S Harthan; Dingcai Cao; Ellen Shorter Journal: Cont Lens Anterior Eye Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Jos J Rozema; Gareth D Hastings; Marta Jiménez-García; Carina Koppen; Raymond A Applegate Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Date: 2022-09-16 Impact factor: 3.992
Authors: Gareth D Hastings; Lan Chi Nguyen; Matthew J Kauffman; Roxana T Hemmati; Jason D Marsack; Raymond A Applegate Journal: Clin Exp Optom Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 2.742
Authors: Gareth D Hastings; Alexander W Schill; Chuan Hu; Daniel R Coates; Raymond A Applegate; Jason D Marsack Journal: Vision Res Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 1.984
Authors: Sarah M Wilting; Gareth D Hastings; Lan Chi Nguyen; Matthew J Kauffman; Elizabeth S Bell; Chuan Hu; Sujata Rijal; Jason D Marsack Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 2.106
Authors: Lan Chi Nguyen; Matthew J Kauffman; Gareth D Hastings; Raymond A Applegate; Jason D Marsack Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 2.106
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