Ticak Anita, Walline Jeffrey J
University of Houston College of Optometry, Houston, Texas, USA.
Optom Vis Sci. 2013 Jan;90(1):3-8. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3182781868.
To determine whether bifocal soft contact lenses with a distance center design provide myopic defocus to the peripheral retina similar to corneal reshaping contact lenses.
Myopic subjects underwent five cycloplegic autorefraction readings centrally and at 10, 20, and 30 degrees temporally, nasally, superiorly, and inferiorly while wearing Proclear Multifocal "D" contact lenses with a +2.00-diopter add power (CooperVision, Fairport, NY) and after wearing Corneal Refractive Therapy (Paragon Vision Sciences, Mesa, AZ) contact lenses for 2 weeks.
Fourteen subjects completed the study. Nine (64%) were female, and 12 (86%) were white. The average (± SD) spherical equivalent noncycloplegic manifest refraction for the right eye was -2.84 ± 1.29 diopters. The average logMAR best-corrected, binocular, high-contrast visual acuity was -0.17 ± 0.15 while wearing the bifocal soft contact lenses and -0.09 ± 0.16 after corneal reshaping contact lens wear (analysis of variance, p = 0.27). The orthokeratology contact lens yielded a more myopic peripheral optical profile than the soft bifocal contact lens at 20 and 30 degrees eccentricity (except inferior at 20 degrees); the two modalities were similar at 10 degrees eccentricity.
Our data suggest that the two modalities are dissimilar despite the statistical similarities. The corneal reshaping contact lens shows an increase in relative peripheral myopic refraction, a pattern achieved by other studies, but the bifocal lens does not exhibit such a pattern. The low statistical power of the study could be a reason for lack of providing statistical difference in other positions of gaze, but the graphical representation of the data shows a marked difference in the peripheral optical profile between the two modalities. More sophisticated methods of measuring the peripheral optical profile may be necessary to accurately compare the two modalities and to determine the true optical effect of the bifocal soft contact lens on the peripheral retina.
确定具有远用中心设计的双焦点软性接触镜是否能为周边视网膜提供与角膜塑形接触镜类似的近视性离焦。
近视受试者在佩戴具有+2.00屈光度附加光度的Proclear Multifocal “D” 软性接触镜(库博光学,纽约州费尔波特)时,以及佩戴角膜塑形治疗(Paragon Vision Sciences,亚利桑那州梅萨)接触镜2周后,分别进行五次睫状肌麻痹下的中央及颞侧、鼻侧、上方和下方10度、20度和30度的自动验光读数。
14名受试者完成了研究。9名(64%)为女性,12名(86%)为白人。右眼非睫状肌麻痹下平均(±标准差)等效球镜度为-2.84±1.29屈光度。佩戴双焦点软性接触镜时平均logMAR最佳矫正双眼高对比度视力为-0.17±0.15,佩戴角膜塑形接触镜后为-0.09±0.16(方差分析,p = 0.27)。在20度和30度偏心度时(20度下方除外),角膜塑形接触镜比软性双焦点接触镜产生更近视的周边光学轮廓;在10度偏心度时,两种方式相似。
我们的数据表明,尽管在统计学上有相似之处,但这两种方式并不相同。角膜塑形接触镜显示相对周边近视性屈光增加,这是其他研究得出的模式,但双焦点镜片未表现出这种模式。研究的低统计效能可能是在其他注视位置缺乏统计学差异的原因,但数据的图形表示显示两种方式在周边光学轮廓上有明显差异。可能需要更复杂的测量周边光学轮廓的方法来准确比较这两种方式,并确定双焦点软性接触镜对周边视网膜的真正光学效果。