Visual quality of juvenile myopes wearing multifocal soft contact lenses.

Eye and vision (London, England) Pub Date : 2020-07-19 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s40662-020-00204-4
Xiaopeng Huang, Feifu Wang, Zhiyi Lin, Yifan He, Shuyun Wen, Ling Zhou, Fan Lu, Jun Jiang
{"title":"Visual quality of juvenile myopes wearing multifocal soft contact lenses.","authors":"Xiaopeng Huang,&nbsp;Feifu Wang,&nbsp;Zhiyi Lin,&nbsp;Yifan He,&nbsp;Shuyun Wen,&nbsp;Ling Zhou,&nbsp;Fan Lu,&nbsp;Jun Jiang","doi":"10.1186/s40662-020-00204-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>It is unclear whether multifocal soft contact lenses (MFSCLs) affect visual quality when they are used for myopia control in juvenile myopes. The aim of this study was, therefore, to investigate the effect of MFSCLs on visual quality among juvenile myopia subjects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a prospective, intervention study, thirty-three juvenile myopes were enrolled. Visual perception was assessed by a quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire with spectacles at baseline and after 1 month of MFSCL wear. At the one-month visit, the high (96%) contrast distance visual acuity (distance HCVA) and low (10%) contrast distance visual acuity (distance LCVA) were measured with single vision spectacle lenses, single vision soft contact lenses (SVSCLs) and MFSCLs in a random order. Wavefront aberrations were measured with SVSCLs, with MFSCLs, and without any correction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Neither distance HCVA (<i>p</i> > 0.05) nor distance LCVA (<i>p</i> > 0.05) revealed any significant difference between MFSCLs, SVSCLs and single vision spectacle lenses. The overall score (the sum of ten symptoms) of the QoV questionnaire did not show a statistically significant difference between spectacles at baseline and after 1 month of MFSCL wear (<i>p</i> = 0.357). The results showed that the frequency (<i>p</i> < 0.001), severity (<i>p</i> = 0.001) and bothersome degree (<i>p</i> = 0.016) of halos were significantly worse when wearing MFSCLs than when wearing single vision spectacle lenses. In contrast, the bothersome degree caused by focusing difficulty (<i>p</i> = 0.046) and the frequency of difficulty in judging distance or depth perception (<i>p</i> = 0.046) were better when wearing MFSCLs than when wearing single vision spectacle lenses. Compared with the naked eye, MFSCLs increased the total aberrations (<i>p</i> < 0.001), higher-order aberrations (<i>p</i> < 0.001), trefoil (<i>p</i> = 0.023), coma aberrations (<i>p</i> < 0.001) and spherical aberrations (SA) (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Compared with the SVSCLs, MFSCLs increased the total aberrations (<i>p</i> < 0.001), higher-order aberrations (<i>p</i> < 0.001), coma aberrations (<i>p</i> < 0.001) and SA (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The direction of SA was more positive (<i>p</i> < 0.001) with the MFSCLs and more negative (<i>p</i> = 0.001) with the SVSCLs compared with the naked eye.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Wearing MFSCLs can provide satisfactory corrected visual acuity (both distance HCVA and distance LCVA). Although the lenses increased the aberrations, such as total aberrations and higher-order aberrations, there were few adverse effects on the distance HCVA, distance LCVA and visual perception after 1 month of MFSCL use.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR-OOC-17012103. Registered 23 July 2017, http://www.chictr.org.cn/usercenter.aspx.</p>","PeriodicalId":520624,"journal":{"name":"Eye and vision (London, England)","volume":" ","pages":"41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40662-020-00204-4","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eye and vision (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-020-00204-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Background: It is unclear whether multifocal soft contact lenses (MFSCLs) affect visual quality when they are used for myopia control in juvenile myopes. The aim of this study was, therefore, to investigate the effect of MFSCLs on visual quality among juvenile myopia subjects.

Methods: In a prospective, intervention study, thirty-three juvenile myopes were enrolled. Visual perception was assessed by a quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire with spectacles at baseline and after 1 month of MFSCL wear. At the one-month visit, the high (96%) contrast distance visual acuity (distance HCVA) and low (10%) contrast distance visual acuity (distance LCVA) were measured with single vision spectacle lenses, single vision soft contact lenses (SVSCLs) and MFSCLs in a random order. Wavefront aberrations were measured with SVSCLs, with MFSCLs, and without any correction.

Results: Neither distance HCVA (p > 0.05) nor distance LCVA (p > 0.05) revealed any significant difference between MFSCLs, SVSCLs and single vision spectacle lenses. The overall score (the sum of ten symptoms) of the QoV questionnaire did not show a statistically significant difference between spectacles at baseline and after 1 month of MFSCL wear (p = 0.357). The results showed that the frequency (p < 0.001), severity (p = 0.001) and bothersome degree (p = 0.016) of halos were significantly worse when wearing MFSCLs than when wearing single vision spectacle lenses. In contrast, the bothersome degree caused by focusing difficulty (p = 0.046) and the frequency of difficulty in judging distance or depth perception (p = 0.046) were better when wearing MFSCLs than when wearing single vision spectacle lenses. Compared with the naked eye, MFSCLs increased the total aberrations (p < 0.001), higher-order aberrations (p < 0.001), trefoil (p = 0.023), coma aberrations (p < 0.001) and spherical aberrations (SA) (p < 0.001). Compared with the SVSCLs, MFSCLs increased the total aberrations (p < 0.001), higher-order aberrations (p < 0.001), coma aberrations (p < 0.001) and SA (p < 0.001). The direction of SA was more positive (p < 0.001) with the MFSCLs and more negative (p = 0.001) with the SVSCLs compared with the naked eye.

Conclusions: Wearing MFSCLs can provide satisfactory corrected visual acuity (both distance HCVA and distance LCVA). Although the lenses increased the aberrations, such as total aberrations and higher-order aberrations, there were few adverse effects on the distance HCVA, distance LCVA and visual perception after 1 month of MFSCL use.

Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR-OOC-17012103. Registered 23 July 2017, http://www.chictr.org.cn/usercenter.aspx.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

青少年近视配戴多焦软性隐形眼镜的视觉质量。
背景:目前尚不清楚多焦软性隐形眼镜(MFSCLs)用于青少年近视控制时是否会影响视觉质量。因此,本研究的目的是探讨mfscl对青少年近视受试者视觉质量的影响。方法:在一项前瞻性干预研究中,33名青少年近视患者入组。在基线和佩戴MFSCL 1个月后,通过视力质量(QoV)问卷评估视觉感知。随访1个月时,随机使用单视力眼镜、单视力软性隐形眼镜(SVSCLs)和MFSCLs分别测量高(96%)对比距离视力(distance HCVA)和低(10%)对比距离视力(distance LCVA)。用svscl和mfscl测量波前像差,不做任何校正。结果:距离HCVA (p > 0.05)和距离LCVA (p > 0.05)在mfscl、svscl和单视力镜片之间均无显著性差异。QoV问卷的总得分(十个症状的总和)在配戴MFSCL 1个月后与基线时无统计学差异(p = 0.357)。结果表明,配戴多晶状体眼镜时光晕出现的频率(p = 0.001)和令人烦恼的程度(p = 0.016)明显低于配戴单视力镜片时。相比之下,佩戴多晶状体眼镜时,对焦困难引起的困扰程度(p = 0.046)和判断距离或深度感知困难的频率(p = 0.046)均优于佩戴单视力镜片时。与裸眼相比,MFSCLs的总像差(p p = 0.023)和彗差(p p p p p p = 0.001)均高于SVSCLs。结论:配戴mfscl可获得满意的矫正视力(远端HCVA和远端LCVA)。虽然晶状体增加了总像差和高阶像差等像差,但在使用MFSCL 1个月后,对距离HCVA、距离LCVA和视知觉的不良影响不大。试验注册:中国临床试验注册中心:ChiCTR-OOC-17012103。2017年7月23日注册,http://www.chictr.org.cn/usercenter.aspx。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信