Search

Purpose: Lens power profiles can provide valuable insights on the imposed optical defocus and visual experience of contact lens wearers, especially in the context of myopia control. This study measured the refractive power profiles of multifocal soft contact lenses (MFCLs) currently used or that have the potential for use in myopia control using high spatial resolution aberrometry. The instrument's repeatability for determining MFCLs power profiles was also assessed. Method: The power profiles of 10 MFCLs of various designs (centre‐distance, centre‐near and extended depth of focus) were measured using the Lambda‐X NIMOEVO, a phase shifting Schlieren‐based device. Power profiles were graphically expressed as measured power at each chord position and the maximum add power was calculated. The repeatability of the NIMOEVO was expressed as the within‐subject standard deviation at each chord position for a subset of five MFCLs. Results: The measured distance powers differed from nominal powers for more than half of the MFCLs with a definable distance zone. There were variations in the chord position of the distance and near correction zones, rate of power transitions and calculated maximum add between the MFCLs which did not depend on lens design. For half of the MFCLs, the power profile shape was inconsistent between different nominal back vertex powers of the same design. The repeatability of the NIMOEVO was dependent on the lens design, with designs featuring faster rates of power change exhibiting worse repeatability. Conclusions: Significant differences in MFCL power profiles were found which were not adequately represented in labelling. This is likely due to the small number of parameters used to define lens power characteristics. Eye health care practitioners should be aware of potential differences in power profiles between different MFCLs, which will impact the retinal defocus introduced during lens wear and the wearer's visual experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Axial length is a primary outcome in the management of progressive myopia. However, young children may have difficulty fixating during these measurements compared to older children, which can result in higher measurement variability. This may affect perceived axial length progression, leading to inappropriate management. This study assessed the impact of patient age on measurement variability for axial length measurements taken with the IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 in myopic children. A retrospective review of records was undertaken at a university optometry clinic. Five axial length measurements captured at the same visit were collected with the IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 for myopic patients ≤16 years. The within-subject standard deviation and R2 were calculated for each instrument to examine the effects of age on instrument variability. Data was collected for 51 patients (30 female and 21 male), and the mean age was 10.98 ± 2.77 years. Mean axial length measured with the IOLMaster 700 was longer compared to the IOLMaster 500 (difference −0.02 ± 0.02 mm; p < 0.001). There was no effect of age on within-person variability for the measurement of axial lengths with either instrument, with R2 values of 0.021 (p = 0.305) and 0.13 (p = 0.420) for the IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500, respectively. The within-subject variability of axial measurements with the IOLMaster 700 was significantly lower than that with the IOLMaster 500 (p < 0.001). Measurement variability of axial length measurements with the IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 was not dependent on age. However, axial length measurements captured with the IOLMaster 700 were significantly longer and less variable than those with the IOLMaster 500. Eye health care practitioners should be aware of the differences between the two instruments and refrain from using them interchangeably, especially for myopia control where small changes in axial length can affect patient management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]