Objective: The aim of this research is to evaluate 2 different soft multifocal contact lenses (MFCL) that were used in daily and monthly presbyopia rehabilitation in terms of visual acuity and patient satisfaction. Material and Methods: Balafilcon A and Etafilcon A were applied to 62 patients. Visual acuity was evaluated in appropriate photopic conditions with logMAR at 6 m for distance and with Jaeger chart at 30 cm for near. Treatment and routine follow-up letter contrast sensitivity (CS) tests were recorded. A questionnaire was filled by patients regarding their contact lens satisfaction separately for near, intermediate and distance vision that includes questions about ghosting, visual clarity, and overall image satisfaction. The average was calculated after scoring of these between 0-10. Results: Visual acuities were obtained: For the participants who used Balafilcon A is 0.053 (±0.02), and in near vision Jaeger chart 1.03 (±0.4); for the participants who used Etafilcon A is 0.053 (±0.01) in distance visual acuity and in near vision Jaeger chart 1.23 (±0.45). While there was no significant difference in near and distance vision between the 2 lenses, the CS increased in both lenses. However, this increase was lesser than the detected increment in glasses. The near, intermediate and distance patient satisfaction were similar in all lenses. Conclusion: A visual rehabilitation that satisfies MFCL applied patients can be achieved by considering the design of the lens according to the need for distance or near vision.
Keywords: Presbyopia; soft contact lens; patient satisfaction
Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı, günlük ve aylık presbiyopi rehabilitasyonunda kullanılan 2 farklı yumuşak multifokal kontakt lensi (MFKL) görme keskinliği ve hasta memnuniyeti açısından değerlendirmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Altmış iki hastaya Balafilcon A ve Etafilcon A uygulandı. Görme keskinliği, mesafe için 6 m'de logMAR ve yakın için 30 cm'de Jaeger çizelgesi ile uygun fotopik koşullarda değerlendirildi. Tedavi ve rutin takipte, kontrast duyarlılık [contrast sensitivity (CS)] testleri kaydedildi. Hastalar tarafından yakın, orta ve uzak görüş için ayrı ayrı kontakt lens memnuniyetleri ile ilgili olarak gölgelenme, görsel netlik ve genel görüntü memnuniyeti ile ilgili soruları içeren bir anket dolduruldu. Bunların 0-10 arasında puanlanmasından sonra ortalama hesaplandı. Bulgular: Balafilcon A kullanan katılımcılar için 0,053 (±0,02) ve yakın görüş için Jaeger eşeli ile 1,03 (±0,4); Etafilcon A kullanan katılımcılar için uzak görme keskinliği 0,053 (±0,01) ve yakın görüş için Jaeger eşeli ile 1,23 (±0,45) görme keskinlikleri elde edildi. İki mercek arasında yakın ve uzak görüş açısından önemli bir fark olmazken; CS, her iki mercekte de arttı. Ancak bu artış, gözlüklerde tespit edilen artıştan daha azdı. Yakın, orta ve uzak hasta memnuniyeti tüm lenslerde benzerdi. Sonuç: MFKL uygulanan hastaları tatmin edecek bir görsel rehabilitasyon, lensin uzak veya yakın görme ihtiyacına göre tasarımı dikkate alınarak sağlanabilir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Presbiyopi; yumuşak kontakt lens; hasta memnuniyeti
- Holden BA, Fricke TR, Ho SM, Wong R, Schlenther G, Cronjé S, et al. Global vision impairment due to uncorrected presbyopia. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(12):1731-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Wolffsohn JS, Davies LN. Presbyopia: Effectiveness of correction strategies. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2019;68:124-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- du Toit R. How to prescribe spectacles for presbyopia. Community Eye Health. 2006; 19(57):12-3. [PubMed] [PMC]
- Meyler J, Ruston D. Presbyopia. In: Efron N, ed. Contact Lens Practice. 3rd ed. China: Elsiver; 2018. p.214-30. [Crossref]
- Kasthurirangan S, Markwell EL, Atchison DA, Pope JM. MRI study of the changes in crystalline lens shape with accommodation and aging in humans. J Vis. 2011;11(3):19. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Singh P, Tripathy K. Presbyopia. 2021 Jul 16. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2021 Jan-. [PubMed]
- Sha J, Bakaraju RC, Tilia D, Chung J, Delaney S, Munro A, et al. Short-term visual performance of soft multifocal contact lenses for presbyopia. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2016;79(2):73-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Vasudevan B, Flores M, Gaib S. Objective and subjective visual performance of multifocal contact lenses: Pilot study. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2014;37(3):168-74. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Gispets J, Arjona M, Pujol J, Vilaseca M, Cardona G. Task oriented visual satisfaction and wearing success with two different simultaneous vision multifocal soft contact lenses. J Optom. 2011;4(3):76-84. [Crossref]
- Lopes-Ferreira D, Neves H, Queiros A, Faria-Ribeiro M, Peixoto-de-Matos SC, González-Méijome JM. Ocular dominance and visual func tion testing. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013: 2389 43. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Bennett ES. Bifocal and multifocal contact lenses. In: Phillips AJ, Speedwell L, eds. Contact Lenses. 6th ed. Poland: Elsiver; 2019. p.265-88. [Crossref]
- Richdale K, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. Comparison of multifocal and monovision soft contact lens corrections in patients with low-astigmatic presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83(5):266-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Bakaraju RC, Ehrmann K, Falk D, Ho A, Papas E. Physical human model eye and methods of its use to analyse optical performance of soft contact lenses. Opt Express. 2010;18(16):16868-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Zheleznyak L, Alarcon A, Dieter KC, Tadin D, Yoon G. The role of sensory ocular dominance on through-focus visual performance in monovision presbyopia corrections. J Vis. 2015; 15(6):17. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Radhakrishnan A, Dorronsoro C, Sawides L, Marcos S. Short-term neural adaptation to simultaneous bifocal images. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e93089. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Sha J, Tilia D, Kho D, Amrizal H, Diec J, Yeotikar N, et al. Visual performance of daily-disposable multifocal soft contact lenses: A randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Optom Vis Sci. 2018;95(12):1096-104. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Gupta N, Naroo SA, Wolffsohn JS. Visual comparison of multifocal contact lens to monovision. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86(2):E98-105. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Ferrer-Blasco T, Madrid-Costa D. Stereoacuity with simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2010;87(9):E663-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Fernandes PR, Neves HI, Lopes-Ferreira DP, Jorge JM, González-Meijome JM. Adaptation to multifocal and monovision contact lens correction. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90(3):228-35. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Wahl S, Fornoff L, Ochakovski GA, Ohlendorf A. Disability glare in soft multifocal contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2018;41(2): 175-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Llorente-Guillemot A, García-Lazaro S, Ferrer-Blasco T, Perez-Cambrodi RJ, Cervi-o A. Visual performance with simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses. Clin Exp Optom. 2012;95(1):54-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Remón L, Pérez-Merino P, Macedo-de-Araújo RJ, Amorim-de-Sousa AI, González-Méijome JM. Bifocal and multifocal contact lenses for presbyopia and myopia control. J Ophthalmol. 2020;2020:8067657. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Papas EB, Decenzo-Verbeten T, Fonn D, Holden BA, Kollbaum PS, Situ P, et al. Utility of short-term evaluation of presbyopic contact lens performance. Eye Contact Lens. 2009; 35(3):144-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Sheedy JE, Harris MG, Bronge MR, Joe SM, Mook MA. Task and visual performance with concentric bifocal contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 1991;68(7):537-41. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Diec J, Tilia D, Naduvilath T, Bakaraju RC. Predicting short-term performance of multifocal contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2017;43(6):340-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Pérez-Prados R, Pi-ero DP, Pérez-Cambrodí RJ, Madrid-Costa D. Soft multifocal simultaneous image contact lenses: A review. Clin Exp Optom. 2017;100(2):107-27. [Crossref] [PubMed]
.: Process List