International Ophthalmology

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 305–311 | Cite as

Good subjective presbyopic correction with newly designed aspheric multifocal contact lens

  • Silvia W. Zandvoort
  • Jan H. Kok
  • Henk Molenaar
Original Papers


Many people of the so-called ‘baby-boom’ of 1945, nowadays require presbyopic correction. A lot of them choose for multifocal contact lenses, but this is not the perfect solution. Decreased visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, and appearance of haloes, ‘ghosting’ and glare are a problem. In this pilot study, with ten randomly, selected, consecutive patients, a newly designed soft aspheric multifocal contact lens was tested for visual performance and comfort on day 1 and after six months' wear. Success rate was 80% after six months. Visual acuity was good with exception for near vision under low illumination conditions. Two patients mentioned haloes. A statistical significant loss of contrast sensitivity was recorded on day 1 for the spatial frequencies 6.0, 12.0 and 18.0 cpd (cycles per degree) under high and low illumination. As well as for the spatial frequencies 12.0 and 18.0 cpd under high illumination and 6.0 cpd under low illumination (p = 0.05) after six months' wear. Mean overrefraction was limited. All patients recorded good comfort.

Key words

contrast sensitivity multifocal contact lens presbyopia 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Feinbloom W. United States Patent 2, 129, 305. Application 21 August, patented 6 September 1938.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Back AP. Correction of presbyopia with contact lenses: Comparative success rate with three systems. Optom Vis Sci 1989; 66(8): 518–25.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Erickson P, Robboy M. Performance characteristics of a hydrophilic concentric bifocal contact lens. Am J Optom & Physiol Opt 1985; 62(10): 702–8.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McGill E, Ames K, Erickson P, Robboy M. Quality of vision with hydrogel simultaneous vision bifocal contact lenses. ICLC 1987;14(12) 476–82.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGill E, Erickson P. Stereopsis in presbyopic wearing monovision and simultaneous vision bifocal contact lenses. Am J Optom & Physiol Opt 1988; 65(8): 619–26.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Back AP, Grant T, Hine N. Comparative visual performance of three presbyopic contact lens correction. Optom Vis Sci 1992; 69(6): 474–80.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Back AP. Presbyopes and contact lenses: Is there hope? Contact Lens Forum Dec 1990:11–6.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Back AP. The comparative visual performance of monovision and various concentric bifocals. Trans Br Contact Lens Assoc Conf 1987:46–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erickson P, Schor C. Visual function with presbyopic contact lens correction. Optom Vis Sci 1990; 67(1): 22–8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Collins MJ, Brown B, Bowman KJ. Contrast sensitivity with contact lens correction for presbyopia. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1989; 9: 133–8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jindra LF, Vance Z. Contrast sensitivity testing: A more complete assessment of vision. J Catar Refrac Surg 1989; 15: 141–8.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tweten S, Wall M, Schwartz BD. A comparison of three clinical methods of spatial contrast sensitivity testing in normal subjects. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthal 1990; 228: 24–7.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blanks G. Literature review of hydrogel presbyopiccorrection. ICLC 1991; 18: 142–7.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Borish IM. Pupildependency of bifocal contact lenses. Am J Optom & Physiol Opt 1988; 65(5): 417–23.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Josephson JE, Caffery BE Rigid bifocal contact lenses: a clinical approach. Spectrum 1990; Oct 35–45.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weseman W. Physiologisch-optische eigenschaften diffractiver Kontaktlinsen. Die Kontaktlinse 1990; 12: 4–9.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Phillips AJ, Stone J. Bifocal and multifocal contact lenses. In: De Carle JT (ed.) Contact lenses. A textbook for practitioner and student. London, Butterworths, 1989, 3rd edition, 368, 408,611.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gussler CH, Solomon KD, Gussler JR, Litteral G, v. Meter WS. A clinical evaluation of two multifocal soft contact lenses. CLAO Oct 1992; 18(4): 237–9.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eggink FAGJ, Pinkers AJLG, De Graaf R. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity with diffrax contact lenses. Contact Lens Journal 1990; 18(2): 37–9.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baude D, Miege C. Presbyopia compensation with contact lenses — a new aspherical progressive lens. J of BCLA 1992; 15(1): 7–15.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thorn F. Effects of dioptric blur on the vistech contrast sensitivity test. Optom Vis Sci 1990; 67(1): 8–12.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Elliot D, Whitaker D, Macveigh D. Neural contribution to spatiotemporal contrast sensitivity decline in healthy ageing eyes. Vision Res 1990; 30(4): 541–7.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Owsley C, Sekuler R, Siemsem D. Contrast sensitivity throughout adulthood. Vision Res 1983; 23(7): 689–99.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stanislo S, Wicker D, Green DG. Contrast sensitivity measurements with the echelon diffractive bifocal contact lens as compared to bifocal spectacles. CLAO Journal 1992; 18(3): 161–4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvia W. Zandvoort
    • 1
  • Jan H. Kok
    • 1
  • Henk Molenaar
    • 1
  1. 1.Cornea and Contact Lens Unit of the Department of Ophthalmology, Academical Medical CenterUniversity of AmsterdamAZ AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations