Optometry & Vision Science

Skip Navigation LinksHome > March 2013 - Volume 90 - Issue 3 > Adaptation to Multifocal and Monovision Contact Lens Correct...
Optometry & Vision Science:
doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e318282951b
Original Articles

Adaptation to Multifocal and Monovision Contact Lens Correction

Fernandes, Paulo R.B.*; Neves, Helena I. F.; Lopes-Ferreira, Daniela P.; Jorge, Jorge M.M.*; González-Meijome, José M.*

Collapse Box


Purpose: To compare visual performance with the Biofinity multifocal (MF) contact lens with monovision (MV) with the Biofinity single-vision contact lens.

Methods: A crossover study of 20 presbyopic patients was conducted. Patients were randomized first into either an MF or an MV lens for 15 days for each modality, with a washout period between each lens type. Measurements included monocular and binocular high- and low-contrast logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity (VA) at distance and near visions, binocular distance contrast sensitivity function, and near stereoacuity.

Results: At 15 days, patients lost fewer than two letters (half a line of VA) of binocular distance and near VA, with the MF and MV lens under high- and low-contrast conditions (P > 0.05 for both comparisons). No statistically significant differences were seen in binocular VA at near or distance with either lens. However, the monocular distance VA improved significantly in the nondominant eye, with the MF lens by one line over the 15-day period under high-contrast (P = 0.023) and low-contrast (P = 0.035) conditions; this effect was not seen with the MV lens. Contrast sensitivity function was within the normal limits with both lenses. The stereoacuity was significantly (P < 0.01) better with MF than with MV.

Conclusions: Multifocal contact lens correction provided satisfactory levels of VA comparable with MV without compromising stereoacuity in this crossover study. The near vision significantly improved in the dominant eye, and the distance vision improved in the nondominant eye from 1 to 15 days with the MF lens, suggesting that patients adapted to the multifocality overtime, whereas this was not true for MV.

© 2013 American Academy of Optometry


Article Tools


Article Level Metrics

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.