Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Dynamics of the accommodative response and facility with dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control

Vera, Jesús; Redondo, Beatriz; Galan, Tomás; Machado, Pedro; Molina, Rubén; Koulieris, George-Alex; Jiménez, Raimundo

Dynamics of the accommodative response and facility with dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control Thumbnail


Authors

Jesús Vera

Beatriz Redondo

Tomás Galan

Pedro Machado

Rubén Molina

Raimundo Jiménez



Abstract

Objective To assess the impact of using dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control on the dynamics of the accommodative response and facility. Methods 24 young adult myopes were fitted with dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control (MiSight®) and single-vision soft contact lenses (Proclear®). The WAM-5500 open-field autorefractor was used to measure the dynamics of the accommodative response (magnitude and variability) in binocular conditions, with accommodative data being gathered from the dominant eye, at three viewing distances (500 cm, 40 cm, and 20 cm) during 90 s. Also, the binocular accommodative facility was assessed with the WAM-5500 autorefractor. All participants performed the same experimental protocol with the dual-focus (MiSight) and single-vision (Proclear) soft contact lenses, with both experimental sessions being carried in two different days and following a counterbalanced order. Results This study showed greater lags of accommodation with the MiSight than the Proclear lenses at near distances (40 cm: 1.27 ± 0.77 vs. 0.68 ± 0.37 D, corrected p-value = 0.002, Cohen-d = 0.90; and 20 cm: 1.47 ± 0.84 vs. 1.01 ± 0.52 D, corrected p-value = 0.007, Cohen-d = 0.75), whereas a higher variability of accommodation was observed with the dual-focus than the single-vision lenses at 500 cm (0.53 ± 0.11 vs. 0.23 ± 0.10 D), 40 cm (0.82 ± 0.31 vs. 0.68 ± 0.37 D), and 20 cm (1.50 ± 0.56 vs. 1.15 ± 0.39 D) (corrected p-value < 0.001 in all cases, and Cohen-ds = 0.67–2.33). Also, a worse quantitative (27.75 ± 8.79 vs. 34.29 ± 10.08 cycles per minute, p = 0.029, Cohen-d = 0.48) and qualitative (23.68 ± 7.12 vs. 28.43 ± 7.97 score, p = 0.039, Cohen-d = 0.45) performance was observed with the MiSight when compared to the Proclear lenses. Conclusions The use of dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control alters the dynamics of accommodative response and facility in the short-term. Although this optical design has demonstrated its effectiveness for myopia control, eye care specialists should be aware of the acute effects of these lenses on accommodation performance.

Citation

Vera, J., Redondo, B., Galan, T., Machado, P., Molina, R., Koulieris, G., & Jiménez, R. (2023). Dynamics of the accommodative response and facility with dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control. Contact Lens & Anterior Eye, 46(1), Article 101526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2021.101526

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date Oct 11, 2021
Online Publication Date Oct 18, 2021
Publication Date 2023-02
Deposit Date Jan 14, 2022
Publicly Available Date Mar 3, 2023
Journal Contact Lens and Anterior Eye
Print ISSN 1367-0484
Publisher Elsevier
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 46
Issue 1
Article Number 101526
DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2021.101526

Files

Published Journal Article (836 Kb)
PDF

Publisher Licence URL
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Copyright Statement
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.





You might also like



Downloadable Citations