Comparison of monofocal and multifocal contact lenses on binocular distance optical performance in non-presbyopic participants
Purpose To compare binocular distance optical performance in non-presbyopic optometry students under different contact lens conditions: no lenses, monofocal lenses, and multifocal lenses. Methods A total of 20 optometry students (age: 23.00 ± 2.58 years) meeting eligibility criteria were recruited....
| Autores: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2026 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (USC) |
| Repositorio: | Minerva. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:dnet:minerva_____::07981331d08b8fcd0d377d1feeeb1b60 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10347/47016 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Multifocal contact lenses Corrected distance visual acuity Dynamic visual acuity Fixation disparity Stereopsis Multifokale Kontaktlinsen Korrigierte Sehschärfe Dynamische Sehschärfe Fixationsdisparation 220915 Optometría |
| Sumario: | Purpose To compare binocular distance optical performance in non-presbyopic optometry students under different contact lens conditions: no lenses, monofocal lenses, and multifocal lenses. Methods A total of 20 optometry students (age: 23.00 ± 2.58 years) meeting eligibility criteria were recruited. The study employed a randomized crossover design with two sessions: (1) baseline without contact lenses (W-CL), and (2) experimental where each participant was fitted with monofocal contact lenses (M-CL; Clariti 1‑Day) and multifocal contact lenses (MF-CL; Clariti 1‑Day Multifocal) in random order, using the permutation method balanced 1:1 across participants within the same session. Optical performance was assessed by measuring binocular distance visual acuity parameters (corrected distance visual acuity [CDVA] and dynamic visual acuity [DVA]) and binocular depth perception parameters (fixation disparity and stereopsis), using the OptoTab POLAR 24″ SMT4V device under standardized conditions. Results Significant differences in visual acuity parameters (CDVA and DVA) were found across conditions (repeated measures ANOVA, p < 0.001), with post hoc analysis showing reduced acuity for MF-CL vs. W‑CL and M‑CL (Sidak, all p ≤ 0.002). For both parameters, effect sizes were negligible between W‑CL and M‑CL (all Cohen’s d = 0.07–0.09), and small and clinically meaningful when MF-CL was involved (all Cohen’s d = 0.08–0.17). No significant differences in depth perception parameters (fixation disparity or stereopsis) were found across conditions (all p ≥ 0.103) with negligible to small effect sizes (Cohen’s d, all p ≥ 0.38). Conclusion In non-presbyopic participants, MF-CL significantly reduced visual acuity parameters compared to M‑CL and W‑CL, but not optical performance related to binocular vision. |
|---|