Clinical Evaluation and Comparison of
PolyVue® Multifocal Lens and Acuvue Bifocal Lens*
By Dennis M. Kuwabara, O.D., F.A.A.O. ; Jon M. Ishihara, O.D., F.A.A.O. ; Randall F. Takaki, O.D., F.A.A.O.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this clinical study is to evaluate and compare the clinical performance and patient preference of the PolyVue multifocal lenses and the Acuvue Bifocal lenses.
STUDY DESIGN
With knowledge that it is always more difficult to convert satisfied wearers of any lens to another, we developed a two-tier fitting protocol for a more fair comparison of the two lenses:
Segment 1
13 patients who are currently wearing Acuvue Bifocal lenses will be refitted with PolyVue multifocal lenses.
Segment 2
17 patients who are currently wearing single vision soft contact lenses and/or doing monovision will be fitted with both Acuvue bifocal and PolyVue multifocal lenses in a crossover comparison.
RESULTS
Segment 1:
Of the 13 patients, 31% chose Acuvue bifocal, 46% chose PolyVue multifocal, and 23% chose both.
Of the 4 who chose Acuvue, the overall rating was (3)average to (4)good. Reading was rated from (4)good to (5)excellent. Conversely, this group rated PolyVue reading vision from (1)poor to (3)average.
Of the 6 who chose PolyVue, the overall rating was (4)good to (5)excellent. Distance and reading vision for PolyVue rated (5)excellent. This group rated Acuvue slightly lower than PolyVue in all categories.
The three patients who chose both Acuvue and PolyVue rated both equally (4)good.
Segment 2:
Of the 17 patients, 65% chose PolyVue, 29% chose none, 6% chose Acuvue.
The 11 patients who chose PolyVue rated the overall performance from (3)average to (4)good. The reading and distance vision categories rated (3)average to (5)excellent. This group rated Acuvue lenses as (2)less than average to (3)average.
The one patient who chose Acuvue rated it as (5)excellent overall but rated PolyVue as (4)good.
The 5 who chose neither of the lenses rated both lenses as (2)less than average to (4)good in the reading category.
CLINICAL IMPRESSIONS AND SUMMARY
In segment 1 of the study, having more than half of the successful Acuvue bifocal patients choosing PolyVue despite common knowledge that it is always more difficult to convert existing, satisfied wearers of any lens to a new lens may indicate that there is still some areas of improvement that can be made to the Acuvue Bifocal lenses, primarily the distance acuity. In segment 2 of the study, 11 out of 12 patients chose PolyVue with a fitting success rate of approximately 65% (11 out of 17 total fitting) while only 1 patient chose Acuvue with a success rate of approximately 6% (1 out of 17). This leads us to believe that a lens like PolyVue which provides the patient with better, well-rounded range of vision is more desirable.
*ACUVUE is a registered trademark of JJVCI.
Sweden Report
By Göran Seger, Sweden
Of the 150 presbyopes fitted using the PolyVue® Presbyopic System™, lenses were successfully dispensed to 131 patients. This represents an approximate success rate of 87.3%.
Mean average age of the subjects was 52. The add power requirement ranged from +0.75 to +2.50.
Of the 131 successful fittings, 39 were monovision; 11 were modified monovision; 81 were progressive fitting, including 17 cases with toric progressive on one or both eyes.
All 131 patients achieved good distance vision and acceptable near vision.
MONOVISION
10 eyes with cylinder greater than -0.75 were successfully fitted with non-toric High Definition lenses. The majority of the axis for these cylinders were within 20° of either 90° or 180° with good results.
Mean average age of the subjects fitted with monovision was 49.
MODIFIED MONOVISION
In 15 out of 22 eyes, the lens distance power was either right on the refraction or within plus or minus 0.25 diopter deviation from the refraction.
Mean average age of this group was 53.
PROGRESSIVE/TORIC PROGRESSIVE
34 out of 128 eyes successfully fitted with High Definition Progressive lenses had a cylinder requirement greater than -0.75 diopter.
Of those fitted with Toric Progressive lenses, the axis of the lens deviated from the refraction by as much as 30° with a good result.
Mean average age of the progressive fittings was 54, with 52 for toric progressive fittings.