Poster Presentations 273

Conlusion: This case demonstrates fitting Boston ocularsurface prosthetics is a viable option to improve vision inadvanced keratoconics before considering a referral forcorneal surgery, such as penetrating keratoplasty.

Poster 5

Clinical Evaluation of CooperVision’s Biofinity ToricDaily Soft Contact Lens Versus Vistakon’s Acuvue Oasysfor Astigmatism Daily Wear Soft Contact Lens

Anna Clark, O.D., Donald J. Siegel, O.D., Ron Cedrone, O.D.,Robert Davis, O.D., Barry Eiden, O.D., Steve Klein, O.D.,Steve Lutz, O.D., and Greg Forsythe, O.D., Sun City West EyeCare, Sun City West, Arizona

Background: The objective of this study was to compareCooperVision’s Biofinity Toric lens with Vistakon’s Acu-vue Oasys for Astigmatism lens when worn for 4 weeksof daily wear in terms of visual acuity, comfort, ease offit, handling, stability, rotational alignment, subject prefer-ence, and ocular physiology.Method: This study was a contralateral (subjects wore1 study lens in the right and the other study lens in theleft), randomized, subject masked, 4-week dispensingstudy. Study evaluations were completed for the studylenses at the initial/dispensing, 2-week, and 4-week visits.The study tested the hypothesis that CooperVision’s Biofin-ity Toric lens provides superior comfort when comparedwith Acuvue Oasys for Astigmatism. Subjects were maskedto the test identity; investigators were not masked to lenspackaging and markings.Results: Forty-eight subjects completed the study.There were 3 nonsignificant adverse events that fullyresolved. There was no difference in the distance visualacuity between the Biofinity Toric and Acuvue Oasysfor Astigmatism lens or the number of trials neededto achieve a successful fit. At the 2-week visit, Biofin-ity Toric was superior to Oasys for Astigmatism fordryness (p50.003), quality of vision (p50.006), andcentration (Z52.764). These findings were statisticallysignificant. At the 4-week visit, Biofinity Toric was su-perior to Oasys for Astigmatism for handling (p50.21),dryness (p50.003), overall comfort (p50.001), end ofthe day comfort (p50.007), and centration (Z52.249).These findings were statistically significant. Biofinitywas preferred by approximately a 3:1 ratio in theforced choice preference questions for overall comfort,end of day comfort, handling, dryness and overallpreference.Conclusion: Biofinity Toric was superior for handling, dry-ness, quality of vision, overall comfort, end of day comfort,centration, and rotational alignment. There was no differ-ence in postblink movement or dislocation. Biofinity waspreferred by subjects in a questionnaire for overall comfort,end of day comfort, handling, dryness, and overallpreference.

(D.S. is an employee of Coopervision. Study funded byCoopervision.)

Poster 6

Use of a Novel Power Mapping Technique to EvaluateMultifocal Contact Lens Designs

Alexis Vogt, Ph.D., Kirk Bateman, M.S., Tim Green, M.S.,and Bill Reindel, O.D., M.S., Bausch & Lomb Incorporated,Rochester, New York

Background: Demand for multifocal contact lensescontinues to increase with an aging population. Al-though aspheric optics are commonly used to providesimultaneous vision correction for presbyopes, limitedoptical design information is available to assist practi-tioners in lens selection. The objective of this study isto compare power maps of 2 aspheric multifocal de-signs (PureVision Multifocal Low Add [PVMFL] andHigh Add [PVMFH], and CIBA Air Optix Aqua Mul-tifocal Lo Add [AOMFL], Med Add [AOMFM], andHi Add [AOMFH]) using a novel power mappingtechnique.Method: Multifocal contact lenses were characterized us-ing high lateral resolution Hartmann-Shack wavefrontsensing that records over 200 power measurements withina 3-mm lens radius. Power maps were generated for three23.00 D lenses per design. Statistical analysis was per-formed over the central 2-mm diameter of the center-near designs. To assess similarities/differences betweencentral powers, 2 designs with power differences within0.25 D with 95% confidence were characterized as thesame Add.Results: Mean lens powers over the central 2 mm diam-eter for the center-near PVMFL and PVMFH were 22.41D and 21.16 D, respectively, showing 2 distinct designprofiles. Confidence interval analysis demonstrated the 2adds were significantly different. However, mean lenspowers over the central 2 mm diameter for the center-near AOMFL, AOMFM, and AOMFH were, 22.75 D,21.70 D, and 21.59 D, respectively, revealing only 2distinct power profiles. Confidence intervals for the cen-ter-near means of the AOMFM and AOMFH comparisonswere not different. These 2 lenses have a difference of0.11 D (95% CI: 0.02 D,0.20 D). Differences of at least0.25 D exist for comparisons of PVMFL and AOMFLlenses (95% CI: 0.26 D, 0.42 D) and PVMFH andAOMFH lenses (95% CI: 0.34 D, 0.50 D). The PVMFLand PVMFH offered more Add when compared toAOMFL and AOMFH.Conclusion: Power mapping is a useful tool to evaluate rel-ative similarities and differences in power profiles ofaspheric multifocal contact lenses. Statistical analysis ofpower profiles of the 3 CIBA Air Optix Aqua multifocalproducts showed 2 distinct designs, with the Med Addand Hi Add lenses exhibiting no significant difference in