Objective

To assess the impact of using dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control on the dynamics of the accommodative response and facility.

Methods

24 young adult myopes were fitted with dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control (MiSight®) and single-vision soft contact lenses (Proclear®). The WAM-5500 open-field autorefractor was used to measure the dynamics of the accommodative response (magnitude and variability) in binocular conditions, with accommodative data being gathered from the dominant eye, at three viewing distances (500 cm, 40 cm, and 20 cm) during 90 s. Also, the binocular accommodative facility was assessed with the WAM-5500 autorefractor. All participants performed the same experimental protocol with the dual-focus (MiSight) and single-vision (Proclear) soft contact lenses, with both experimental sessions being carried in two different days and following a counterbalanced order.

Results

This study showed greater lags of accommodation with the MiSight than the Proclear lenses at near distances (40 cm: 1.27 ± 0.77 vs. 0.68 ± 0.37 D, corrected p-value = 0.002, Cohen-d = 0.90; and 20 cm: 1.47 ± 0.84 vs. 1.01 ± 0.52 D, corrected p-value = 0.007, Cohen-d = 0.75), whereas a higher variability of accommodation was observed with the dual-focus than the single-vision lenses at 500 cm (0.53 ± 0.11 vs. 0.23 ± 0.10 D), 40 cm (0.82 ± 0.31 vs. 0.68 ± 0.37 D), and 20 cm (1.50 ± 0.56 vs. 1.15 ± 0.39 D) (corrected p-value < 0.001 in all cases, and Cohen-ds = 0.67–2.33). Also, a worse quantitative (27.75 ± 8.79 vs. 34.29 ± 10.08 cycles per minute, p = 0.029, Cohen-d = 0.48) and qualitative (23.68 ± 7.12 vs. 28.43 ± 7.97 score, p = 0.039, Cohen-d = 0.45) performance was observed with the MiSight when compared to the Proclear lenses.

Conclusions

The use of dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control alters the dynamics of accommodative response and facility in the short-term. Although this optical design has demonstrated its effectiveness for myopia control, eye care specialists should be aware of the acute effects of these lenses on accommodation performance.

中文翻译：

---

双焦点软性隐形眼镜控制近视的调节反应和便利的动力学

客观的

评估使用双焦点软性隐形眼镜控制近视对调节反应和设施动态的影响。

方法

为 24 名年轻成人近视配戴了用于控制近视的双焦点软性隐形眼镜 (MiSight®) 和单光软性隐形眼镜 (Proclear®)。WAM-5500 开放场自动验光仪用于测量双眼条件下调节响应的动态（幅度和可变性），调节数据是从主眼收集的，在三个观察距离（500 厘米、40 厘米和 20 厘米）厘米）在 90 秒内。此外，还使用 ​​WAM-5500 自动验光仪评估了双眼调节设施。所有参与者都使用双焦点 (MiSight) 和单视 (Proclear) 软性隐形眼镜执行相同的实验方案，两个实验会话在不同的两天进行，并遵循平衡的顺序。

结果

这项研究表明，在近距离（40 厘米：1.27 ± 0.77 与 0.68 ± 0.37 D，校正后的 p 值 = 0.002，Cohen-d = 0.90；和 20 厘米：1.47 ± 0.37 D，校正后的 p 值 = 0.002，Cohen-d = 0.90；和 20 厘米：1.47 ± 0.84 vs. 1.01 ± 0.52 D，校正后的 p 值 = 0.007，Cohen-d = 0.75），而在 500 cm 处观察到双焦点镜片比单视镜片具有更高的调节可变性（0.53 ± 0.11 vs. 0.23 ± 0.10 D)、40 cm（0.82 ± 0.31 对比 0.68 ± 0.37 D）和 20 cm（1.50 ± 0.56 对比 1.15 ± 0.39 D）（在所有情况下校正后的 p 值 < 0.001，Cohen-ds = 0.67–2.33）。此外，更差的定量（27.75 ± 8.79 与 34.29 ± 10.08 每分钟循环，p = 0.029，Cohen-d = 0.48）和定性（23.68 ± 7.12 与 28.43 ± 7.97 得分，p = 0.039，Cohen-d = 0.45 ) 与 Proclear 镜片相比，MiSight 的性能得到了观察。

结论

使用双焦点软性隐形眼镜控制近视可在短期内改变调节反应和便利性的动态。虽然这种光学设计已证明其对近视控制的有效性，但眼保健专家应该意识到这些镜片对调节性能的急性影响。