• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.51-60
• /
• 2011

Purpose: This study was to investigate visual performance and subjective satisfaction with multifocal soft contact lenses at near works in university students. Methods: In a cross-over study design, 26 students (6 male, 20 female) who did not have any ocular disorder with at least 20/20(1.0) binocular vision were fitted with singlevision lenses (SofLens$^{TM}59$, Bausch + Lomb Co. USA) or multifocal lenses (SofLens Multifocal, Bausch + Lomb Co. USA). After 2 weeks, visual performance assessments included visual acuity, stereoacuity and contrast sensitivity function at distance and near. Near point of accommodation, accommodative facility, near point of convergence, vergence facility and near range of clear vision at near were examined. Students' satisfaction and preference were measured using survey questionaries. Results: Subjects maintained at least 20/20 binocular vision with multifocal and single-vision lenses at distance and near. There was no difference between multifocal and single-vision lenses in stereoacuity, contrast sensitivity function and vergence facility at far and near. The near point of accommodation, accommodative facility, near point of convergence and the near range of clear vision with multifocal lenses were better than single-vision lenses. On the survey questionaries, subjects reported that they preferred and satisfied with multifocal lenses with near works, and single-vision lenses with distance works. Conclusions: The majority of university students preferred multifocal to single vision lenses because multifocal lenses provided better visual performance at near works. This study suggests that multifocal lens is helpful for young adult in prolonged near works.

• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.117-124
• /
• 2015

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accommodative function of young adult in their 20s wearing monovision, modified monovision, and aspheric multifocal contact lenses at near task. Methods: Thirty young adults ($23.53{\pm}2.37years$) were fitted with monovision, modified monovision (the application of single vision contact lenses and center-near low addition aspheric multifocal contact lenses), and aspheric center-near multifocal contact lenses. After wearing these modalities during a week for adaption, and after watching visual display at computer for inducing accommodative pressure for 1 hour. The following assessments of accommodative function were made: contrast visual acuity (VA) at distance and near; accommodative response; near accommodative facility; and negative relative accommodation (NRA)/positive relative accommodation (PRA). All measurements were carried out binocularly. Results: In binocular distance VA with contrast of 10%, monovision was the worst among the four modalities (p=0.005). In accommodative response at 1 m (1.00 D), monovision was the lowest (p<0.05) and accommodative response at 40 cm (2.50 D) with monovision was lower than that of modified monovision and multifocal contact lens (p<0.05). We also found that there were no significant differences in accommodative facility and NRA/PRA among the four modalities. Conclusions: In young adult (20s), monovision with low add reduced the accommodative response at near task, however, modified monovision and multifocal lens with center-near type did not affect accommodative relaxation.