Verifying and evaluating progressive addition lenses in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND
Despite the fact that more than 50% of multifocal lenses dispensed in the United States are progressive addition lenses, adequate methods for clinical verification of these lenses have been lacking. Using automated lens meter techniques, the author describes a simplified method for verification of these complex lenses.


METHODS
Thirty pairs of progressive lenses were measured in a modified method using a Humphrey 330 Lens Analyzer. Fifteen pairs were "premium-quality" progressive lenses: fifteen pairs were "non-premium-quality" progressives. Five criteria were assessed on each lens: Distance Zone Width (DZW). Intermediate Zone Width (IZW), Near Zone Width (NZW), Drop Distance (DD), and Maximum Astigmatic Distortion (MAD).


RESULTS
"Premium-quality" progressive lenses failed to demonstrate clear-cut superiority over "non-premium-quality" progressive lenses in the five specified criteria. Individual measurements indicate considerable product inconsistency affected every brand tested.


CONCLUSIONS
Premium- and non-premium-quality progressive lenses demonstrated similar performance characteristics in this study. Zone size variation in these lenses was found to be considerable, a characteristic that seemed to cut across brand lines. The AO Compact lens seemed to demonstrate a shorter drop distance than other lenses, which does enhance its suitability for use with small frames. A comparison of the Essilor Natural PAL to the Younger Image lens showed little difference in the categories measured, although peripheral distortions seemed closer to the reading zone in the image. A comparison of the MAD of lenses in this study to lenses tested in 1986 indicates a considerable improvement has been made in that important characteristic.
Bell
G R
GR
drgbell@pacbell.net
D005139:Eyeglasses / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D055095:Optics and Photonics; D012029:Refraction, Ocular; D012030:Refractive Errors / Q000628:therapy*