Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of visual performance between extended depth of focus contact lens and single-vision contact lens in eyes with monofocal intraocular lens

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the visual performance of extended depth of focus (EDF) contact lenses (CL) in eyes that had undergone monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, and compare that between EDF and single-vision (SV) contact lenses.

Study design

Prospective, randomized, crossover study

Methods

Seventeen patients implanted with monofocal IOLs were enrolled. The study was conducted using 1dayPure EDOF as a test CL and 1dayPure moisture (both SEED Co., Ltd.) as a control CL. Binocular visual acuity from far to near distances, photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity (with and without glare), and stereopsis were evaluated after wearing the two kinds of CLs in random order. The obtained results were compared between the EDF and SV CLs.

Results

Binocular visual acuity at 0.3, 0.4, 0.7, 1, and 5 m was 0.24 ± 0.12, 0.07 ± 0.09, − 0.02 ± 0.08, − 0.02 ± 0.08, and − 0.06 ± 0.07 logMAR during the EDF CL wear, respectively, and 0.39 ± 0.17, 0.26 ± 0.15, 0.04 ± 0.12, − 0.02 ± 0.08, and − 0.09 ± 0.09 during the SV CL wear, respectively. The EDF CL showed better results than the SV CL at 0.3, 0.4, and 0.7 m (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in contrast sensitivity between the EDF and SV CLs at 1.5 cycles per degree under all conditions; however, the sensitivity of the EDF CL was generally worse than that of the SV CL from the middle to high spatial frequencies. Stereopsis at 40 cm was significantly better in the EDF CL wear than in the SV CL wear (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The EDF CL substantially improved visual acuity at near to intermediate distances in IOL-implanted eyes. However, far visual acuity decreased under low-contrast conditions, and contrast sensitivity slightly declined at the middle to high spatial frequencies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. de Silva SR, Evans JR, Kirthi V, Ziaei M, Leyland M. Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;12:CD003169.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alio JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Férnandez-Buenaga R, Pikkel J, Maldonado M. Multifocal intraocular lenses: an overview. Surv Ophthalmol. 2017;62:611–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Agresta B, Knorz MC, Kohnen T, Donatti C, Jackson D. Distance and near visual acuity improvement after implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses in cataract patients with presbyopia: a systematic review. J Refract Surg. 2012;28:426–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Breyer DRH, Kaymak H, Ax T, Kretz FTA, Auffarth GU, Hagen PR. Multifocal intraocular lenses and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2017;6:339–49.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Modi S, Lehmann R, Maxwell A, Solomon K, Cionni R, Thompson V, et al. Visual and patient-reported outcomes of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens compared with those of a monofocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology. 2021;128:197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Paik DW, Park JS, Yang CM, Lim DH, Chung TY. Comparing the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction among three types of multi-focal intraocular lenses. Sci Rep. 2020;10:14832.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gussler CH, Solomon KD, Gussler JR, Litteral G, Van Meter WS. A clinical evaluation of two multifocal soft contact lenses. CLAO J. 1992;18:237–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bennett ES. Contact lens correction of presbyopia. Clin Exp Optom. 2008;91:265–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pérez-Prados R, Piñero DP, Pérez-Cambrodí RJ, Madrid-Costa D. Soft multifocal simultaneous image contact lenses: a review. Clin Exp Optom. 2017;100:107–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wolffsohn JS, Davies LN. Presbyopia: effectiveness of correction strategies. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2019;68:124–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rajagopalan AS, Bennett ES, Lakshminarayanan V. Visual performance of subjects wearing presbyopic contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83:611–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Novillo-Díaz E, Villa-Collar C, Narváez-Peña M, Martín JLR. Fitting success for three multifocal designs: Multicentre randomised trial. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2018;41:258–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Madrid-Costa D, Ruiz-Alcocer J, García-Lázaro S, Ferrer-Blasco T, Montés-Micó R. Optical power distribution of refractive and aspheric multifocal contact lenses: effect of pupil size. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2015;38:317–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Papadatou E, Del Águila-Carrasco AJ, Esteve-Taboada JJ, Madrid-Costa D, Cerviño-Expósito A. Objective assessment of the effect of pupil size upon the power distribution of multifocal contact lenses. Int J Ophthalmol. 2017;10:103–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Wahl S, Fornoff L, Ochakovski GA, Ohlendorf A. Disability glare in soft multifocal contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2018;41:175–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kollbaum PS, Dietmeier BM, Jansen ME, Rickert ME. Quantification of ghosting produced with presbyopic contact lens correction. Eye Contact Lens. 2012;38:252–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tilia D, Munro A, Chung J, Sha J, Delaney S, Kho D, et al. Short-term comparison between extended depth-of-focus prototype contact lenses and a commercially-available center-near multifocal. J Optom. 2017;10:14–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tilia D, Bakaraju RC, Chung J, Sha J, Delaney S, Munro A, et al. Short-term visual performance of novel extended depth-of-focus contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2016;93:435–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bakaraju RC, Ehrmann K, Ho A, Holden BA. Lenses, devices, methods and systems for refractive error. Google Patents. 2014. http://www.google.im/patents/WO2014059465A1?cl=ru. Accessed 4 Feb 2015.

  20. Plainis S, Atchison DA, Charman WN. Power profiles of multifocal contact lenses and their interpretation. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90:1066–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bakaraju RC, Ehrmann K, Ho A. Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs. two commercial multifocals: Part 1. Optical performance evaluation via computed through-focus retinal image quality metrics. J Optom. 2018;11:10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bakaraju RC, Tilia D, Sha J, Diec J, Chung J, Kho D, et al. Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs. two commercial multifocals: Part 2. Visual performance after 1 week of lens wear. J Optom. 2018;11:21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sha J, Tilia D, Kho D, Diec J, Thomas V, Bakaraju RC. Comparison of extended depth-of-focus prototype contact lenses with the 1-day acuvue moist multifocal after one week of wear. Eye Contact Lens. 2018;44(Suppl 2):S157–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kaida T, Yukawa C, Higashi S, Minami K, Miyata K. Presbyopia correction using multifocal soft contact lenses in patients with monofocal intraocular lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2020;46:234–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kamiya K, Fujimura F, Ando W, Iijima K, Shoji N. Visual performance and patient satisfaction of multifocal contact lenses in eyes undergoing monofocal intraocular Lens implantation. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2020;43:218–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilhelm H, Peters T, Durst W, Roelcke S, Quast R, Hütten M, et al. Assessment of mesopic and contrast vision for driving licences: which cut-off values, which methods are appropriate? Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2013;230:1106–13 ((in German)).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Tilia D, Sha J, Thomas V, Bakaraju RC. Vision performance and accommodative/binocular function in children wearing prototype extended depth-of-focus contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2019;45:260–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cochener B, Concerto Study Group. Clinical outcomes of a new extended range of vision intraocular lens: International Multicenter Concerto Study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42:1268–75.

  29. Reinhard T, Maier P, Böhringer D, Bertelmann E, Brockmann T, Kiraly L, et al. Comparison of two extended depth of focus intraocular lenses with a monofocal lens: a multi-centre randomised trial. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021;259:431–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. García-Lázaro S, Ferrer-Blasco T, Madrid-Costa D, Albarrán-Diego C, Montés-Micó R. Visual performance of four simultaneous-image multifocal contact lenses under dim and glare conditions. Eye Contact Lens. 2015;41:19–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gupta N, Naroo SA, Wolffsohn JS. Visual comparison of multifocal contact lens to monovision. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86:E98-105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hohberger B, Laemmer R, Adler W, Juenemann AG, Horn FK. Measuring contrast sensitivity in normal subjects with OPTEC® 6500: influence of age and glare. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007;245:1805–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by an unrestricted investigator-initiated grant from SEED Co. Ltd. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennoudai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan

    Takahiro Hiraoka, Gaku Kiuchi, Reia Hiraoka, Junko Kotsuka, Yumiko Kinoshita & Tetsuro Oshika

Authors
  1. Takahiro Hiraoka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gaku Kiuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Reia Hiraoka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Junko Kotsuka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yumiko Kinoshita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tetsuro Oshika
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takahiro Hiraoka.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

Sponsorship and article processing charges for this study were funded by SEED Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan. None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Corresponding author: Takahiro Hiraoka

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hiraoka, T., Kiuchi, G., Hiraoka, R. et al. Comparison of visual performance between extended depth of focus contact lens and single-vision contact lens in eyes with monofocal intraocular lens. Jpn J Ophthalmol 65, 803–809 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-021-00862-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-021-00862-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation