Early symptomatic presbyopes-What correction modality works best?

Eye and Contact Lens

Volumn 35, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 221-226

  Woods, Jill ^a   Woods, Craig A ^a   Fonn, Desmond ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Presbyopia; Multifocal; Monovision; Soft contact lens; Performance; Subjective ratings

Indexed keywords

SILICON;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL STUDY; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DEVICE; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYDROGEL; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; PERFORMANCE; PRESBYOPIA; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SOFT CONTACT LENS; STEREOSCOPIC VISION; VISION TEST;

ADULT; CONTACT LENSES, HYDROPHILIC; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; HYDROGEL; HYDROGELS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRESBYOPIA; QUESTIONNAIRES; SILICONES; VISION TESTS; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 70349127323     PISSN: 15422321     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e3181b5003b     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bennett ES. Contact lens correction of presbyopia. Clin Exp Optom 2008; 91:265-278.
2. Jackson JM. Better designs improve success with soft toric multifocals. Cont Lens Spectrum 2007;22:13.
3. Morgan PB, Efron N. A decade of contact lens prescribing trends in the United Kingdom (1996 -2005). Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2006;29:59-68.
4. Situ P, du Toit R, Fonn D, et al. Successful monovision contact lens wearers refitted with bifocal contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2003;29:181-184.
5. Richdale K, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. Comparison of multifocal and monovision soft contact lens corrections in patients with low-astigmatic presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci 2006;83:266-273.
6. Benjamin W. Comparing multifocals and monovision. CL Spectrum 2007; 22:35-39.
7. Gupta N, Naroo SA, Wolffsohn JS. Visual comparison of multifocal contact lens to monovision. Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:E98-E105.
8. Back A, Grant T, Hine N. Comparative visual performance of three presbyopic contact lens corrections. Optom Vis Sci 1992;69:474-480.
9. Helmholtz HV. Uber die akkommodation des Auges. A v Graefe's Arch Klin Ophthalmol 1855;1:1-74.
10. Donders FC. On the Anomalies of Accommodation and Refraction of the Eye: With a Preliminary Essay on Physiological Dioptrics. Translated by William Daniel Moore. London, The New Sydenham Society, 1864.
11. Weale RA. Epidemiology of refractive errors and presbyopia. Surv Ophthalmol 2003;48:515-543.
12. Strenk S, Strenk L, Koretz JF. The mechanism of presbyopia. Prog Retin Eye Res 2005;24:379-393
13. Woods CA, Dumbleton K, German T. The assessment of contact lens symptomology using wireless handheld devices. Optom Vis Sci e-abstract 060067.
14. Collins M, Bruce A, Thompson B. Adaptation to monovision. Int Contact Lens Clin 1994;21:218-224.
15. Erickson P, McGill EC. Role of visual acuity, stereoacuity and ocular dominance in monovision patient success. Optom Vis Sci 1992;69:761-764.
16. Suttle C, Alexander J, Liu M, et al. Sensory ocular dominance based on resolution acuity, contrast sensitivity and alignment sensitivity. Clin Exp Optom 2009;92:2-8.
17. Sejas O, Gomez De Liano P, Gomez De Liano R, et al. Ocular dominance diagnosis and its influence in monovision. Am J Ophthalmol 2007;144: 209-216.
18. Rajagopalan AS, Bennett ES, Lakshminarayan V. Visual performance of subjects wearing presbyopic contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2006;83:611-615.
19. Papas EB, Decenzo-Verbeten T, Fonn D, et al. Utility of short-term evaluation of presbyopic contact lens performance. Eye Contact Lens 2009;35:144-148.