June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Objective Visual Performance of Low-add Multifocal Contact Lenses
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Balamurali Vasudevan
    Optometry, Midwestern University, Glendale, AZ
  • Sara Gaib
    Optometry, Midwestern University, Glendale, AZ
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Balamurali Vasudevan, None; Sara Gaib, Bausch+Lomb (C), Alcon (R), Vistakon (R), Coopervision (R)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 5490. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Balamurali Vasudevan, Sara Gaib; Objective Visual Performance of Low-add Multifocal Contact Lenses. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):5490. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare the objective visual performance of different soft multifocal contact lenses.

Methods: 10 subjects (habitual soft contact lens wearers) between the ages of 40-45 years participated in the study. Three different multifocal silicone hydrogel contact lenses (Acuvue Oasys, Air Optix and Biofinity multifocal contact lenses) were fit within the same visit. All the lenses were fit according to the manufacturer’s recommendations using the respective fitting guide. Objective visual performance measurements included: open field accommodative response (WAM-5500) at different stimulus levels (0D, 2.00D, 2.50D, 3.00D and 4.00D) and optical aberrations (iTrace; total root mean-square value, coma and spherical aberration) at different viewing distances (6m, 65cm and 40cm).

Results: Accommodative response was not significantly different for these presbyopes between the three types of multifocal contact lenses at each of the accommodative stimulus levels (p>0.05). Accommodative lag increased for higher stimulus levels for all 3 types of contact lenses. Ocular aberrations were not significantly different between these 3 contact lens designs at each of the different viewing distances (p>0.05). In addition, optical aberrations did not significantly differ between different viewing distances for any of these lenses (p>0.05).

Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in accommodative response between the three different low-add power multifocal contact lenses. Optical aberrations did not differ between lenses at different viewing distances.

Keywords: 404 accommodation • 653 presbyopia • 477 contact lens  

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.