title: Visual performance comparison between contact lens-based pinhole and simultaneous vision contact lenses.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The aim was to evaluate the visual performance provided with a contact lens-based pinhole design against a simultaneous vision multifocal contact lens.
  
  
  METHODS
  In a cross-over study at the University of Valencia, 22 presbyopic patients were evaluated using an artificial pupil fitted on the non-dominant eye and the simultaneous vision PureVision Multifocal contact lenses. After one month of contact lens wear, binocular distance visual acuity (BDVA), binocular near visual acuity (BNVA), defocus curve, binocular distance contrast sensitivity, binocular near contrast sensitivity, and stereoacuity were measured, under photopic conditions (85 cd/m(2)). In addition, binocular distance visual acuity and binocular distance contrast sensitivity were examined under mesopic conditions (5 cd/m(2)).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Mean binocular distance visual acuity for pinhole and PureVision Multifocal were 0.02 ± 0.04 and 0.01 ± 0.04 logMAR under photopic conditions and 0.16 ± 0.06 and 0.12 ± 0.04 logMAR for binocular near visual acuity under mesopic conditions, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between both types of lenses at distance for both lighting levels and intermediate distances (p > 0.05). There was a significant difference at near vision under photopic conditions (p = 0.03). Binocular distance contrast sensitivity revealed statistically significant differences between the pinhole system and PureVision Multifocal for six and 12 cpd (cycles per degree) spatial frequencies at the two luminance levels, while for near vision, differences were also significant for 18 cpd. Stereoacuity was better with PureVision Multifocal (127 ± 49.3 seconds of arc) compared with the pinhole lens (220.2 ± 32.3 seconds of arc, p = 0.004).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Pinhole and PureVision Multifocal contact lenses provide good binocular vision for distance and functional intermediate vision. Although it was better with the PureVision Multifocal, near vision was not satisfactory for either of the two contact lens options.
authors.affiliation: Optometry Research Group, Optics Department, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. santiago.garcia-lazaro@uv.es
authors.forename: Santiago
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: García-Lázaro
authors.forename: César
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Albarrán-Diego
authors.forename: Teresa
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Ferrer-Blasco
authors.forename: Hema
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Radhakrishnan
authors.forename: Robert
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Montés-Micó
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D055253:Color Vision / Q000502:physiology*; D003261:Contact Lenses; D015350:Contrast Sensitivity; D018592:Cross-Over Studies; D004867:Equipment Design; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011305:Presbyopia / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D015348:Vision, Binocular / Q000502:physiology*; D014792:Visual Acuity