Diurnal variations in visual performance for disposable contact lenses.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare the visual performance provided by different daily disposable contact lenses and to analyze its variation over time.

METHODS

Visual performance was evaluated in terms of visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) in 15 myopic subjects (-0.50 to -4.00 diopters) who had been previously fitted with each one of the following seven types of soft contact lenses: DAILIES TOTAL1 (Alcon, Forth Worth, TX), DAILIES AquaComfort Plus (Alcon), 1-DAY ACUVUE TruEye (Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Jacksonville, FL), 1-DAY ACUVUE MOIST (Johnson & Johnson Vision Care), SofLens daily disposable (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY), Proclear 1 Day (CooperVision, Fairport, NY), and Clariti 1-Day (Sauflon, Twickenham, United Kingdom). We measured VA at three contrast levels (10%, 50%, and 100%) and CS for three spatial frequencies (10, 20, and 25 cycles/degree). These measurements were performed at 2-hr intervals during a 12-hr period of continuous wearing. Measurements were also performed with ophthalmic lenses before contact lens fitting.

RESULTS

Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) results revealed significant differences across the lens types and over time for low-contrast VA only. For high- and medium-contrast VA, ophthalmic lens performed better than the contact lenses after 12 hr of use (without statistical differences among the contact lenses). Contrast sensitivity values also showed differences across lenses for the three spatial frequencies under analysis. For each particular lens type, no CS variations were observed with wearing time. Although some of the differences were not statistically significant, we found that, for many of the VA and CS measures, ophthalmic lens and DAILIES TOTAL1 yielded better values than the 1-DAY ACUVUE TruEye and Clariti 1-Day.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing VA at different contrasts and CS measurements allowed us to perform a visual function evaluation. Contact lens characteristics such as material and water content, among others, may be the cause of the differences in visual performance that emerged from this study. Our findings provide useful information for contact lens practitioners.