eesti teaduste
akadeemia kirjastus
SINCE 1952
Proceeding cover
of the estonian academy of sciences
ISSN 1736-7530 (Electronic)
ISSN 1736-6046 (Print)
Impact Factor (2020): 1.045

Accommodative response in various design soft contact lens wearers; pp. 333–340

Full article in PDF format | 10.3176/proc.2021.4S.04

Evita Kassaliete, Anastasija Gordeja, Karola Panke, Anete Petrova, Gunta Krumina


The progression of myopia in young adults due to inadequate accommodation is currently one of the global research challenges. Studies have demonstrated that multifocal contact lenses have a different effect on accommodative response. The aim of this study was to assess the accommodative lag using various design multifocal contact lenses at different working distances. The study was conducted on 10 emmetropic subjects aged 22–28 years. An open-field autorefractor PowerRef 3 was used to assess the response of eye accommodation to stimuli placed at a distance of 25 cm and 40 cm for subjects wearing monofocal and multifocal contact lenses. To determine the effectiveness of contact lens design for accommodative lag compensation, the results of the accommodative lag with and without contact lenses were compared. The measured accommodative lag for stimuli at 40 cm was 1.05 ± 0.11 D and for stimuli at 25 cm 1.53 ± 0.11 D. Regarding the effect of multifocal contact lenses, it was determined that the near vision power zone in the centre of the lens reduces the accommodative lag, while the respective distance vision power zone does not produce a statistically significant change. The near power zone in the centre of the multifocal contact lens effectively affects the accommodative lag by reducing accommodation inaccuracy as effectively as spherical contact lenses with positive power. The addition design for multifocal lenses (Med or Hi) does not significantly affect the accommodative lag. The results of centre-distance multifocal contact lenses depend on the strength of the addition used.


Anderson, H. A., Glasser, A., Stuebing, K. K. and Manny, R. E. 2009. Minus lens stimulated accommodative lag as a function of age. Optom. Vis. Sci.86(6), 685–694.

Benjamin, W. J. 2006. Borishʼs Clinical Refraction. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Berntsen, D. A. and Kramer, C. E. 2013. Peripheral defocus with spherical and multifocal soft contact lenses. Optom. Vis. Sci.90(11), 1215–1224.

Berntsen, D., Sinnott, L., Mutti, D. and Zadnik, K. 2007. Accommodative lag is not related to myopia progression. American Academy of Optometry. Program No. 070049.

Madrid-Costa, D., Ruiz-Alcocer, J., Radhakrishnan, H., Ferrer-Blasco, T. and Montés-Micó, R. 2011. Changes in accom­modative responses with multifocal contact lenses: a pilot study. Optom. Vis. Sci.88(11), 1309–1316.

McBrien, N. A. and Millodot M. 1986. The effect of refractive error on the accommodative response gradient. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt.6(2), 145–149.

Lam, C. S. Y., Tang, W. C., Tse, D. Y.-Y., Tang, Y. Y. and To, C. H. 2014. Defocus incorporated soft contact (DISC) lens slows myopia progression in Hong Kong Chinese schoolchildren: a 2-year randomised clinical trial. Br. J. Ophthalmol.98(1), 40–45

Pérez-Prados, R., Pinero, D. P., Pérez-Cambrodí, R. J. and Madrid-Costa, D. 2017. Soft multifocal simultaneous image contact lenses: a review. Clin. Exp. Optom., 100(2), 107–127.

Pettersson, A. L., Ramsay, M. W., Lundström, L., Rosén, R., Nilsson, M., Unsbo, P. et al. 2011. Accommodation in young adults wearing aspheric multifocal soft contact lenses. Vis. Sci. Ophthalmic Opt.58(19–20), 1804–1808.

Plainis, S., Atchison, D. A. and Charman, W. N. 2013. Power profiles of multifocal contact lenses and their interpretation. Optom. Vis. Sci.90(10), 1066–1077.

Plusoptix Inc. 2018.; PR09_User_manual_Version-5022_english.pdf

Remón, L., Pérez-Merino, P., Macedo-de-Araújo, R. J., Amorim-de-Sousa, A. I. and González-Méijome, J. M. 2020. Bifocal and multifocal contact lenses for presbyopia and myopia control. J. Ophthalmol., 8067657.

Schor, C. 1999. The influence of interactions between accom­modation and convergence on the lag of accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt.19(2), 134–150.

Tarrant, J., Severson, H. and Wildsoet, C. F. 2008. Accom­modation in emmetropic and myopic young adults wearing bifocal soft contact lenses. Ophthalmic PhysiolOpt., 28(1), 62–72.

Walline, J. J., Lindsley, K., Vedula, S. S., Cotter, S. A., Mutti, D. O. and Twelker, J. D. 2011. Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.12, CD 004916.

Wolffsohn, J. S., Calossi, A., Cho, P., Gifford, K., Jones, L., Li, M. et al. 2016. Global trends in myopia management attitudes and strategies in clinical practice. Cont. Lens Anterior Eye39(2), 106–116.

Zhu, Q., Liu, Y., Tighe, S., Zhu, Y., Su, X., Lu, F. et al. 2019. Retardation of myopia progression by multifocal soft contact lenses. Int. J. Medical Sci.16(2), 198–202.


Back to Issue