Authors: Jill Woods1, Doerte Luensmann1, Sarah Guthrie1, Jose Vega2, Kathryn Richdale2
 

1. Centre for Ocular Research & Education, School of Optometry & Vision Science, University of Waterloo, CANADA
2. CooperVision Inc, Pleasanton, CA, USA

Work supported by CooperVision, Inc.
 

Purpose:
The success of multifocal soft lenses (MF) can differ depending on whether objective or subjective evaluations are considered. This study compared vision results for in-practice acuity and subjective feedback after participants had worn two different MF designs for 1-month.


Methods:
This prospective, participant-masked, randomised, cross-over, daily-wear study involved habitual MF wearers at 5 sites. Study lenses were monthly replacement, silicone hydrogel: comfilcon A (comMF) and lehfilcon A (lehMF). After 1-month wearing each lens, high-contrast logMAR distance, intermediate and near acuities were measured, and participants rated their experience using 0-100 visual-analogue scales, 4-point agreement questions and 5-point preference Likert scales.
 

Results:
59 participants completed; mean(SD) demographics: 53.2±6.7 years, -1.57±2.14 refractive spherical component, +1.86±0.46 near addition. Both lenses were worn >12 hours/day (p=0.96). Comfort was not different between lenses (all >80, p>0.05). High-contrast acuity was not different (p>0.05) between lenses for distance and intermediate, but near was 2.5 letters better
with comMF (p<0.05). Also, more participants preferred comMF for vision for ‘digital device use’ and ‘near’ (both p<0.05). Preferences for distance and intermediate vision were not different (both p>0.05); no preferences favoured lehMF. While ratings for ‘overall satisfaction with vision’, ‘vision in dim/dark light conditions’, ‘consistent vision throughout the day’ and ‘crisp, clear vision overall’ showed no differences (all p>0.05), comMF was rated 9 points better for ‘crisp, clear vision when using digital devices’ (p<0.01). Differences favouring comMF were reported in all four near vision task agreement questions: when using ‘laptop’, ‘phone’, ‘reading’, ‘digital devices’) plus for ‘crisp vision at all distances’ (all p<0.05). No rating or agreement data favoured lehMF.


Conclusions:
Both lenses provided good overall performance. comMF demonstrated better near acuity which aligned with better subjective visual performance outcomes related to near-work and digital device use. These results support the value of including real-world experience and subjective feedback in multifocal fitting and evaluation.