Visual Performance of Center-distance Multifocal Contact Lenses Fit Using a Myopia Control Paradigm.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine the visual performance of center-distance MFCLs in nonpresbyopic adults under different illumination and contrast conditions compared with a single-vision contact lens (SVCL).

METHODS

Twenty-five adult subjects were fit with three different lenses (CooperVision Biofinity D MFCL +2.50 add, Visioneering Technologies NaturalVue MFCL, CooperVision Biofinity sphere). Acuity and reading performance were evaluated.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference in high-contrast distance acuity was observed (Biofinity, -0.18 ± 0.06; Biofinity MFCL, -0.14 ± 0.08; NaturalVue MFCL, -0.15 ± 0.03; repeated-measures [RM] ANOVA, P = .02). Under mesopic, high-contrast conditions, MFCLs performed worse than SVCLs (Biofinity, -0.05 ± 0.091; Biofinity MFCL, +0.03 ± 0.09; NaturalVue MFCL, +0.05 ± 0.091; RM-ANOVA, P < .0001). Under low-contrast conditions, MFCLs performed one line worse in photopic lighting and two lines worse under mesopic conditions (RM-ANOVA, P < .0001). Glare reduced acuity by 0.5 logMAR for all lenses (RM-ANOVA, P < .001). A statistically significant difference in near acuity was observed (RM-ANOVA, P = .02), but all lenses achieved acuity better than -0.1 logMAR (Biofinity, -0.16 ± 0.06; Biofinity MFCL, -0.17 ± 0.04; NaturalVue MFCL, -0.13 ± 0.08). Reading performance in words per minute (wpm) was worse with MFCLs (Biofinity MFCL, 144 ± 22 wpm; NaturalVue MFCL, 150 ± 28 wpm) than with SVCLs (156 ± 23 wpm; RM-ANOVA, P = .02) regardless of letter size (RM-ANOVA, P = .13). No difference in acuity between the MFCLs was detected (RM-ANOVA: all, P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Multifocal contact lenses perform similarly to SVCLs for high-contrast targets and display reduced low-contrast acuity and reading speed. Practitioners should recognize that high-contrast acuity alone does not describe MFCL visual performance.