Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
5704835 | Journal Français d'Ophtalmologie | 2017 | 7 Pages |
Abstract
Starting at 40Â years of age, prespyopia affects a quarter of the world population. Many techniques of presbyopia surgery have emerged in recent years. The purpose of this study was to compare monovision and multifocality and to identify clinical and electrophysiological predictive markers of visual comfort for each correction available in clinical practice. Ten presbyopic patients participated in this study. Patients received monovision and multifocal correction using contact lenses for three weeks each in a random order. A clinical evaluation (visual acuity, TNO test, binocular contrast sensitivity and quality of vision questionnaires) and an electrophysiological evaluation (monocular and binocular pattern VEP with multiple spatial frequencies: 60, 30Â and 15â²) were performed before and after each correction modality. The P100Â was significantly wider and slightly earlier after binocular compared to monocular stimulation at T0. The TNO stereopsis score decreased significantly after correction. No other significant differences, either on clinical or electrophysiological criteria, were found between the two modes of correction. Several significant correlations were found between the stereoacuity difference depending upon correction and evoked potentials by binocular pattern at T0. The larger the stereoacuity difference (better stereoacuity with multifocal compensation), the longer the latency of the P100Â using 60â² checks (RÂ =Â 0.82; PÂ =Â 0.004) and the greater the amplitude of the N75Â using 30â² (RÂ =Â 0.652; PÂ =Â 0.04). Our study found no differences between the 2Â types of correction, but it highlights a benefit of VEP used in current practice and measurement of the P100Â wave, the best indicator of stereopsis and the most consistent, to predict visual comfort after compensation presbyopia.
Keywords
Related Topics
Health Sciences
Medicine and Dentistry
Ophthalmology
Authors
A. El Ameen, S. Majzoub, P.-J. Pisella,