12 research outputs found

    The Effect of Fractal Contact Lenses on Peripheral Refraction in Myopic Model Eyes

    Full text link
    Purpose: To test multizone contact lenses in model eyes: Fractal Contact Lenses (FCLs), designed to induce myopic peripheral refractive error (PRE). Methods: Zemax ray-tracing software was employed to simulate myopic and accommodation-dependent model eyes fitted with FCLs. PRE, defined in terms of mean sphere M and 90–180 astigmatism J180, was computed at different peripheral positions, ranging from 0 to 35 in steps of 5, and for different pupil diameters (PDs). Simulated visual performance and changes in the PRE were also analyzed for contact lens decentration and model eye accommodation. For comparison purposes, the same simulations were performed with another commercially available contact lens designed for the same intended use: the Dual Focus (DF). Results: PRE was greater with FCL than with DF when both designs were tested for a 3.5 mm PD, and with and without decentration of the lenses. However, PRE depended on PD with both multizone lenses, with a remarkable reduction of the myopic relative effect for a PD of 5.5 mm. The myopic PRE with contact lenses decreased as the myopic refractive error increased, but this could be compensated by increasing the power of treatment zones. A peripheral myopic shift was also induced by the FCLs in the accommodated model eye. In regard to visual performance, a myopia under-correction with reference to the circle of least confusion was obtained in all cases for a 5.5 mm PD. The ghost images, generated by treatment zones of FCL, were dimmer than the ones produced with DF lens of the same power. Conclusions: FCLs produce a peripheral myopic defocus without compromising central vision in photopic conditions. FCLs have several design parameters that can be varied to obtain optimum results: lens diameter, number of zones, addition and asphericity; resulting in a very promising customized lens for the treatment of myopia progression.This research was supported by the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (grant FIS2011-23175), the Generalitat Valenciana (grant PROMETEO2009-077) and the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (grant INNOVA SP20120569), Spain.Rodríguez Vallejo, M.; Benlloch Fornés, JI.; Pons Martí, A.; Monsoriu Serra, JA.; Furlan, WD. (2014). The Effect of Fractal Contact Lenses on Peripheral Refraction in Myopic Model Eyes. Current Eye Research. 39(12):1-10. https://doi.org/10.3109/02713683.2014.903498S110391

    How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli–Robson test?

    Get PDF
    Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of a computer-generated Pelli–Robson test displayed on liquid crystal display (LCD) systems compared to a standard Pelli–Robson chart. Methods: Two different randomized crossover experiments were carried out for two different LCD systems for 32 subjects: 6 females and 10 males (40.5 ± 13.0 years) and 9 females and 7 males (27.8 ± 12.2 years), respectively, in the first and second experiment. Two repeated measurements were taken with the printed Pelli–Robson test and with the LCDs at 1 and 3 m. To test LCD reliability, measurements were repeated after 1 week. Results: In Experiment 1, contrast sensitivity (CS) measured with LCD1 resulted significantly higher than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.20 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots showed a proportional bias for LCD1 measures. LCD1 measurements showed reasonable repeatability: ICC was 0.83 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. In Experiment 2, CS measured with LCD2 resulted significantly lower than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.10 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots did not show any proportional bias for LCD2 measures. LCD2 measurements showed sufficient repeatability: ICC resulted 0.51 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. Conclusions: Computer-generated versions of Pelli–Robson test, displayed on LCD systems, do not provide accurate results compared to classic Pelli–Robson printed version. Clinicians should consider that Pelli–Robson computer-generated versions could be non-interchangeable to the printed version
    corecore