September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Current trends of power and spherical aberration profiles in commercial multifocal soft contact lenses
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Eon Kim
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Ravi Chandra Bakaraju
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Klaus Ehrmann
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Eon Kim, Brien Holden Vision Institute (E); Ravi Bakaraju, Brien Holden Vision Institute (E); Klaus Ehrmann, Brien Holden Vision Institute (E)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 6251. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Eon Kim, Ravi Chandra Bakaraju, Klaus Ehrmann; Current trends of power and spherical aberration profiles in commercial multifocal soft contact lenses. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):6251.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To evaluate the optical power and spherical aberration (SA) profiles of commercially-available soft multifocal contact lenses (MFCL) across a range of powers and compare their optical designs.

Methods : The power profiles of thirty-eight types of the most commonly prescribed MFCLs from the 4 major commercial CL manufacturers were evaluated. Three lenses each were measured in powers +6 D, +3 D, +1 D, -1 D, -3 D and -6 D using NIMO TR1504 (Lambda-X, Belgium). All lenses were measured across 8 mm optic zone diameter in multifocal mode of operation. The amount of SA was calculated between 1.0 and 3.5 mm half chord for all types.

Results : Three classes of power profiles were identified: center-near, center-distance and concentric-zone ring-type designs. Most of the lenses were designed with noticeable amounts of spherical aberration. The lens types were categorized into two distinct groups: lens types where SA was power dependent, usually more negative for higher minus powers and more positive for higher plus powers, which on average varied from -1.91 D to +1.20 D across the power range with slope of 0.258 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.234 to 0.282), and lens types where SA was consistent across the power range, which on average varied from -1.92 D to -1.60 D across the power range with slope of 0.020 (95% CI 0.003 to 0.038) (see Figure 1).
In terms of generational changes, the relative plus power for PureVision Hi add MF of approximately 2.50 D was reduced to 2.00 D for the PureVision2 lens. The relative plus for the high add Acuvue lenses dropped from 3.00 D for the Acuvue Bifocal to 1.70 D for the ACUVUE® OASYS® for PRESBYOPIA and further to 1.35 D for the 1-DAY ACUVUE® MOIST MF.

Conclusions : Power profiles vary widely between the different lens types, however certain similarities were noticed between some of the center-near designs. For the more recently released lens types, there appears to be a trend emerging to reduce the relative plus with respect to prescription power, to include negative spherical aberration, and to keep the power profiles consistent across the power range.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.

 

Average of spherical aberration across six power range for lens types with non-uniform SA and lens types with uniform SA as a function of power. Error bars indicate standard deviations between lens types in each group.

Average of spherical aberration across six power range for lens types with non-uniform SA and lens types with uniform SA as a function of power. Error bars indicate standard deviations between lens types in each group.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×