June 2020
Volume 61, Issue 7
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2020
Power profiles of center-distance multifocal soft contact lenses
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Augustine Nyarko Nti
    The Ocular Surface Institute, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Eric R Ritchey
    The Ocular Surface Institute, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • David A Berntsen
    The Ocular Surface Institute, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Augustine Nti, None; Eric Ritchey, Alcon Laboratories (C), SightGlass Vision, Inc (F); David Berntsen, Bausch and Lomb (F), Visioneering Technologies, Inc. (C)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2020, Vol.61, 1180. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Augustine Nyarko Nti, Eric R Ritchey, David A Berntsen; Power profiles of center-distance multifocal soft contact lenses. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2020;61(7):1180.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose : Center-distance multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs) are being prescribed for myopia control and are hypothesized to slow progression by providing clear foveal vision while simultaneously imposing myopic retinal defocus. We determined the power profiles of three commercially-available MFCLs.

Methods : Biofinity Multifocal D +2.50 add (comfilcon A), Proclear Multifocal D +2.50 add (omafilcon A), and NaturalVue Multifocal (etafilcon A) were studied. Two lenses of each power ranging from -1.00 to -6.00D in 1D steps were stored for 24 hours in phosphate buffered saline (PBS; ISO 18369-3:2017 standard). Optical power profiles were measured with the SHSOphthalmic aberrometer with the lens in a PBS-filled wet cell. Measured center thickness and manufacturer-reported material refractive index were utilized in lens power calculations. 2D sagittal power maps were exported and radially averaged power maps generated using custom MATLAB code. Power changes between lens designs were compared using one-way ANOVA and adjusted post-hoc t-tests.

Results : All three center-distance MFCLs showed a significant increase in plus power radially from the optical center (p < 0.001). The increase in plus power was greatest with the NaturalVue MFCL (p<0.001) and was not different between Biofinity and Proclear MFCLs (p = 0.19). The distance zone for both Biofinity and Proclear MFCLs was within the central 1.5 mm radius of the lens and increased in plus power from a radius of 1.5 mm to 2 mm by 1.24 ± 0.26 D for Biofinity and 1.49 ± 0.30 D for Proclear (mean ± SD). The plus power was maintained out to a radius of about 3.8 mm for lower minus lenses and decreased for the most minus power lenses until reaching the edge of the optic zone. The NaturalVue MFCL started increasing in plus power almost immediately from the lens center until reaching maximum measured mean plus power of 3.31 ± 0.36 D at a radius of 2.6 mm. From a radius of 2.6 mm to 3.0 mm, there was a mean decrease in plus power of 4.11 ± 0.20 D. The power was then generally maintained from a radius of 3 mm out to the optic zone.

Conclusions : MFCLs designs vary in their power profiles. These power profiles are consistent with reported myopic changes in peripheral refraction with MFCLs and help explain differences in peripheral refraction that have been reported with these MFCL designs. The variations in plus power are also consistent with previously reported effects on visual performance.

This is a 2020 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.


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.