It is important to be able to measure the range of clear focus in clinical practice to advise on presbyopia correction techniques and to optimise the correction power. Both subjective and objective techniques are necessary: subjective techniques (such as patient reported outcome questionnaires and defocus curves) assess the impact of presbyopia on a patient and how the combination of residual objective accommodation and their natural DoF work for them; objective techniques (such as autorefraction, corneal topography and lens imaging) allow the clinician to understand how well a technique is working optically and whether it is the right choice or how adjustments can be made to optimise performance. Techniques to assess visual performance and adverse effects must be carefully conducted to gain a reliable end-point, considering the target size, contrast and illumination. Objective techniques are generally more reliable, can help to explain unexpected subjective results and imaging can be a powerful communication tool with patients. A clear diagnosis, excluding factors such as binocular vision issues or digital eye strain that can also cause similar symptoms, is critical for the patient to understand and adapt to presbyopia. Some corrective options are more permanent, such as implanted inlays / intraocular lenses or laser refractive surgery, so the optics can be trialled with contact lenses in advance (including differences between the eyes) to better communicate with the patient how the optics will work for them so they can make an informed choice.

Wolffsohn, J., Berkow, D., Chan, K., Chaurasiya, S., Fadel, D., Haddad, M., et al. (2024). BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Evaluation and diagnosis. CONTACT LENS & ANTERIOR EYE, 47(4 (August 2024)) [10.1016/j.clae.2024.102156].

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Evaluation and diagnosis

Zeri F.;
2024

Abstract

It is important to be able to measure the range of clear focus in clinical practice to advise on presbyopia correction techniques and to optimise the correction power. Both subjective and objective techniques are necessary: subjective techniques (such as patient reported outcome questionnaires and defocus curves) assess the impact of presbyopia on a patient and how the combination of residual objective accommodation and their natural DoF work for them; objective techniques (such as autorefraction, corneal topography and lens imaging) allow the clinician to understand how well a technique is working optically and whether it is the right choice or how adjustments can be made to optimise performance. Techniques to assess visual performance and adverse effects must be carefully conducted to gain a reliable end-point, considering the target size, contrast and illumination. Objective techniques are generally more reliable, can help to explain unexpected subjective results and imaging can be a powerful communication tool with patients. A clear diagnosis, excluding factors such as binocular vision issues or digital eye strain that can also cause similar symptoms, is critical for the patient to understand and adapt to presbyopia. Some corrective options are more permanent, such as implanted inlays / intraocular lenses or laser refractive surgery, so the optics can be trialled with contact lenses in advance (including differences between the eyes) to better communicate with the patient how the optics will work for them so they can make an informed choice.
Articolo in rivista - Articolo scientifico
Accommodation; Defocus curve; Diagnosis; Evaluation; Presbyopia; Questionnaires;
English
18-apr-2024
2024
47
4 (August 2024)
102156
none
Wolffsohn, J., Berkow, D., Chan, K., Chaurasiya, S., Fadel, D., Haddad, M., et al. (2024). BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Evaluation and diagnosis. CONTACT LENS & ANTERIOR EYE, 47(4 (August 2024)) [10.1016/j.clae.2024.102156].
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10281/486059
Citazioni
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
Social impact