Comparison of contrast sensitivity in different soft contact lenses and spectacles.

B S Wachler, C L Phillips, D J Schanzlin, R R Krueger
{"title":"Comparison of contrast sensitivity in different soft contact lenses and spectacles.","authors":"B S Wachler,&nbsp;C L Phillips,&nbsp;D J Schanzlin,&nbsp;R R Krueger","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the visual performance of soft contact lenses and spectacles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty eyes of ten patients were examined. Each patient was fit with Acuvue, Cibasoft, and Biomedics contact lenses in random order. LogMar visual acuity and contrast sensitivity using the VectorVision CSV-1000 were measured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in visual acuity between any contact lenses (P=.15). Contrast sensitivity at 12 cycles/degree was significantly lower for the Cibasoft lens compared to spectacles (P=.04). There was no significant difference between spectacles and contact lenses for remaining spatial frequencies (P=.07-.35).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Visual acuity appears to be an insensitive method for evaluating soft contact lenses. The lathe-cut manufacturing process may be responsible for reduced visual function compared to cast-molded lenses. Further study in this area is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":22367,"journal":{"name":"The CLAO journal : official publication of the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, Inc","volume":"25 1","pages":"48-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The CLAO journal : official publication of the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, Inc","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the visual performance of soft contact lenses and spectacles.

Methods: Twenty eyes of ten patients were examined. Each patient was fit with Acuvue, Cibasoft, and Biomedics contact lenses in random order. LogMar visual acuity and contrast sensitivity using the VectorVision CSV-1000 were measured.

Results: There was no significant difference in visual acuity between any contact lenses (P=.15). Contrast sensitivity at 12 cycles/degree was significantly lower for the Cibasoft lens compared to spectacles (P=.04). There was no significant difference between spectacles and contact lenses for remaining spatial frequencies (P=.07-.35).

Conclusions: Visual acuity appears to be an insensitive method for evaluating soft contact lenses. The lathe-cut manufacturing process may be responsible for reduced visual function compared to cast-molded lenses. Further study in this area is needed.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同软性隐形眼镜与眼镜对比敏感度的比较。
目的:比较软性隐形眼镜与普通眼镜的视觉性能。方法:对10例患者的20只眼进行检查。每位患者随机配戴Acuvue、Cibasoft和Biomedics隐形眼镜。使用VectorVision CSV-1000测量LogMar视敏度和对比敏感度。结果:两种隐形眼镜视力差异无统计学意义(P= 0.15)。与眼镜相比,Cibasoft晶状体在12个周期/度时的对比灵敏度明显较低(P= 0.04)。眼镜和隐形眼镜的剩余空间频率无显著差异(P= 0.07 - 0.35)。结论:视敏度是评价软性隐形眼镜的不敏感指标。与铸造透镜相比,车床切割制造过程可能导致视觉功能降低。这方面需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Microbiologic evaluation of frequent-replacement soft contact lenses. Objective assessment of aberrations induced by multifocal contact lenses in vivo. Initial selection of soft contact lenses based on corneal characteristics. Retrospective safety study of the herrick lacrimal plug: a device used to occlude the lacrimal canaliculus. Lid-wiper epitheliopathy and dry-eye symptoms in contact lens wearers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1