Comparaison des verres progressifs Varilux 2 et bif ocaux Telex chez  les non-presbytes:  Pref ere nee et efficacite visuelle

J.-C. Allary; H. Toubiana; P. Auger

doi:10.65636/cjo.v51i3.7021

Authors

J.-C. Allary
H. Toubiana
P. Auger

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.65636/cjo.v51i3.7021

Keywords:

double-foyers, progressifs

Abstract

Twelve (12) non-presbyopic patients who could benefit from added plus at near were fitted with Varilux 2* progressive addition lenses and Telex* bifocal lenses. Each patient wore one type of lens during 4 weeks, and the other type during the next 4 weeks. Subjects then wore the first pair again for one last week before they were asked to make a final choice and to give their opinion on both types of lenses. A series of visual efficiency tests and optometric tests was administered to each subject before entering the study and upon each lens change.

Six (6) subjects preferred to keep the Varilux 2 lenses and six others preferred the Telex lenses. A more detailed analysis of the results revealed a slight global preference for the Varilux 2 lenses. It indicates merely a preference, the acceptance of both type of lenses being generally very good. Reading efficiency tests indicated the possibility of a slightly better efficiency with bifocal lenses.

* : Registered Trademark of Multi-Optics Corporation

References

1. Borish I et al. "Double masked study of progressive addition lenses." Journal of the American Optometric Association, 1980; 51: 933-43.

2. Spaulding D. "Patient preference for a progressive addition multifocal lens (Varilux 2) versus a standard multi focal lens design (ST 25)." Journal of the American Optometric Association, 1981; 52: 789-94.

3. Borish I, Hitzeman SA. "Comparison of the acceptance of progressive addition multifocals with blended bifocals." Journal of the American Optometric Association, 1983; 54: 415-22.

4. Valentino J. "Clinical use of progressive addition lenses on non presbyopic patients." Optometric Monthly, September 1982, pp. 513-15. (Traduction dans L'opticien Suisse, I 983; N° 6: 33-6.).

5. rosvenor TP. "Primary Care Optometry." Professional Press, New-York, 2eme edition, 1989; pp. 81-3.

6. Zellers J et al. "A review of the literature and normative study of accommodative facility." Journal of the American Optometric Association. 1984; 55: 31-7.

7. Institut de Visiologie de France. Optometrie Fonctionnelle, Tome III: "Identification." La Diffusion Optometrique, Vire, France 1987; pp. 118-24.

8. Richaudeau Fet al. "Methode de lecture rapide." Editions Retz, Paris, 1984.

9. Katz, Milton et al. "Reading performance and eye-movements through Varilux 2 and ST-25 lenses." American Journal of Optometry & Physiological Optics. 1984; 61: 196-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-198403000-00008

10. Afanador AJ, Aitsebaomo P. "The range of eye movements through progressive multifocals." Optometric Monthly. February 1982; pp. 104-106.

11. Jones, Ashby et al. "Head movement: A measure of multi focal reading performance." Optometric Monthly, February 1982; pp. 104-106.

12. Jacob JL et al. "Progressive-addition lenses in the management of esotropia with a high accommodation/convergence ratio." Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology. 1980; IS: 166-69.

13. Gaterbaum C et al. "The use of progressive addition lenses in treating accommodative disorders in children." American Academy of Optometry Annual Meeting, 1984. American Journal of Optometry & Physiological Optics. 1984; 61:22P.