June 2023
Volume 64, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2023
Visual performance of optical films with S.T.O.P.® technology
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Cathleen Fedtke
    nthalmic Pty Ltd, Botany, New South Wales, Australia
    University of New South Wales School of Optometry and Vision Science, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Daniel Tilia
    nthalmic Pty Ltd, Botany, New South Wales, Australia
    University of New South Wales School of Optometry and Vision Science, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Klaus Ehrmann
    nthalmic Pty Ltd, Botany, New South Wales, Australia
    University of New South Wales School of Optometry and Vision Science, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Jennie Diec
    nthalmic Pty Ltd, Botany, New South Wales, Australia
  • Karen Lahav-Yacouel
    nthalmic Pty Ltd, Botany, New South Wales, Australia
  • Darrin Falk
    nthalmic Pty Ltd, Botany, New South Wales, Australia
    University of New South Wales School of Optometry and Vision Science, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Ravi C. Bakaraju
    nthalmic Pty Ltd, Botany, New South Wales, Australia
    University of New South Wales School of Optometry and Vision Science, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Cathleen Fedtke nthalmic Pty Ltd, Code E (Employment); Daniel Tilia nthalmic Pty Ltd, Code E (Employment); Klaus Ehrmann nthalmic Pty Ltd, Code E (Employment), nthalmic technologies Pty Ltd, Code O (Owner), nthalmic technologies Pty Ltd, Code S (non-remunerative); Jennie Diec nthalmic Pty Ltd, Code E (Employment); Karen Lahav-Yacouel nthalmic Pty Ltd, Code E (Employment); Darrin Falk nthalmic Pty Ltd, Code E (Employment); Ravi Bakaraju nthalmic Pty Ltd, Code E (Employment), nthalmic technologies Pty Ltd, Code O (Owner), nthalmic holding Pty Ltd, WO/2021/056058, WO/2021/159168, Code P (Patent), nthalmic technologies Pty Ltd, Code S (non-remunerative)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2023, Vol.64, 4952. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Cathleen Fedtke, Daniel Tilia, Klaus Ehrmann, Jennie Diec, Karen Lahav-Yacouel, Darrin Falk, Ravi C. Bakaraju; Visual performance of optical films with S.T.O.P.® technology. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2023;64(8):4952.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To compare the visual performance of optical films with Spatio-Temporal Optical Phase (S.T.O.P.®) technology against a control.
S.T.O.P. films feature optical elements with azimuthally varying power distributions that are arranged rotationally asymmetric in a peripheral treatment zone. When adhered to single vision spectacle lenses (SVSL) and swapping designs frequently, S.T.O.P. films provide a dynamic signal that is hypothesized to reduce and sustain myopia progression.

Methods : Randomized, single-masked, bilateral wear, clinical trial where 42 participants aged 18-40 years wore a control-film pair (CFP, no optical elements) and four S.T.O.P. test-film pairs (TFP) (designs: E, F-1, F-2, and G) applied to SVSL, each for at least 3 days. Visual performance was assessed with subjective ratings (1-10 scale) for clarity of vision (far, intermediate, near), overall vision satisfaction, vision at night and whilst walking. Willingness to purchase was assessed via Yes/No response. Acuity-based measures comprised monocular high and low contrast visual acuity (HCVA/LCVA), contrast sensitivity (CS) at 6m and binocular HCVA at 6m and 40cm. Phorias were measured at 3m and 40cm. HCVA, LCVA, CS and phorias were compared between CFP/no film and between CFP/each TFP. Differences between designs were assessed using linear mixed model, a Bonferroni correction was applied where applicable, and significance was set at 5%.

Results : CFP performed better than any TFP for clarity of vision at all distances (9.1±1.4 vs 6.3-6.9±2.1-2.3, p<0.001), overall vision satisfaction (9.1±0.9 vs 6.0-6.9±2.0-2.2, p<0.001), vision at night (9.0±1.2 vs 6.6-7.4±1.4-2.1, p<0.001), vision when walking (9.1±1.2 vs 6.6-7.1±1.9-2.2, p<0.001) and willingness to purchase (Yes: 95% vs 37-58%, p<0.001). The average visual performance scores for the CFP, E, F-1, F-2 and G designs were 9.1, 6.7, 6.7, 6.4 and 6.9, respectively. CFP was worn longer each day than any of the TFP (8.1±2.7 vs 6.3-7.0±2.1-2.7 h, p<0.001).
There was no difference in any HCVA, LCVA, CS or phoria measure between CFP/no film (p>0.08). Binocular HCVA at 40cm was better with CFP compared to both F-1 and F-2 (mean △<2 letters, p≤0.048).

Conclusions : Visual performance ratings with the four S.T.O.P. film pairs were 18-34% lower than with CFP. Despite the lower ratings, visual acuity-based measures with CFP and TFP were unaffected or clinically insignificant when compared to no film on SVSL and CFP, respectively.

This abstract was presented at the 2023 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in New Orleans, LA, April 23-27, 2023.

×
×

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.

×