Binocular and accommodative function in the controlled randomized clinical trial MiSight® Assessment Study Spain (MASS)

  • Alicia Ruiz-PomedaEmail author
  • Belén Pérez-Sánchez
  • Pilar Cañadas
  • Francisco Luis Prieto-Garrido
  • Ramón Gutiérrez-Ortega
  • César Villa-Collar



To evaluate the binocular and accommodative function in children wearing dual focus (DF) MiSight® contact lenses (CLs) for myopia control compared with children wearing single-vision (SV) spectacles.


This was a randomized, controlled clinical trial involving subjects aged 8 to 12, with myopia ranging from − 0.75 to − 4.00D and astigmatism < 1.00D, allocated to MiSight® study CLs group or control group wearing SV. Binocular and accommodative function was determined at baseline, 12-, and 24-month visits, assessed by the following sequence of tests: distance and near horizontal phoria, accommodative convergence/accommodation (AC/A) ratio, stereopsis, accommodative amplitude (AA), and accommodative response (AR) at 33, 25 and 20 cm.


Seventy-four children completed the study: 41 in the CL group and 33 in the SV group. CLs group did not show any significant differences in binocular and accommodative measurements throughout the study. In control group, distance and near phoria, stereopsis, AC/A and AR at 20 cm did not show any significant change, but AA, AR at 33 cm and AR at 25 cm were greater at 24-month visit compared with baseline (p < 0.05).


DF lenses do not change the binocular and accommodative function in children wearing dual focus CLs.

Trial registration



Binocular vision Accommodation Dual focus contact lenses Children 



The authors would like to thank Peter Bonney for proofreading the article.


CooperVision S.L. Spain provided financial support. CooperVision S.L. provided the study contact lenses and the funding to carry out the clinical trial. The sponsor had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (CEI-R, Regional Research Ethics Committee of the Community of Madrid, Spain) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Saw SM, Wu HM, Seet B, Wong TY, Yap E, Chia KS, Lee L (2001) Academic achievement, close up work parameters, and myopia in Singapore military conscripts. Br J Ophthalmol 85:855–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mutti DO, Mitchell GL, Moeschberger ML, Jones LA, Zadnik K (2002) Parental myopia, near work, school achievement, and children’s refractive error. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:3633–3640Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ip JM, Saw S-M, Rose KA, Morgan IG, Kifley A, Wang JJ, Mitchell P (2008) Role of near work in myopia: findings in a sample of Australian school children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:2903–2910. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fernández-Montero A, Olmo-Jimenez JM, Olmo N, Bes-Rastrollo M, Moreno-Galarraga L, Moreno-Montañés J, Martínez-González MA (2015) The impact of computer use in myopia progression: a cohort study in Spain. Prev Med 71:67–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sherwin JC, Reacher MH, Keogh RH, Khawaja AP, Mackey DA, Foster PJ (2012) The association between time spent outdoors and myopia in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 119:2141–2151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guggenheim JA, Northstone K, McMahon G, Ness AR, Deere K, Mattocks C, Williams C (2012) Time outdoors and physical activity as predictors of incident myopia in childhood: a prospective cohort study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:2856–2865. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Torii H, Kurihara T, Seko Y, Negishi K, Ohnuma K, Inaba T, Tsubota K (2017) Violet light exposure can be a preventive strategy against myopia progression. Ebiomedicine 15:210–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rose KA, Morgan IG, Ip J, Kifley A, Huynh S, Smith W, Mitchell P (2008) Outdoor activity reduces the prevalence of myopia in children. Ophthalmology 115:1279–1285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aller TA, Liu M, Wildsoet CF (2016) Myopia control with bifocal contact lenses: a randomized clinical trial. Optom Vis Sci 93:344–352. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu Y, Wildsoet C (2011) The effect of two-zone concentric bifocal spectacle lenses on refractive error development and eye growth in young chicks. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:1078–1086. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu Y, Wildsoet C (2012) The effective add inherent in 2-zone negative lenses inhibits eye growth in myopic young chicks. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:5085–5093. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benavente-Perez A, Nour A, Troilo D (2014) Axial eye growth and refractive error development can be modified by exposing the peripheral retina to relative myopic or hyperopic defocus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 55:6765–6773. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith EL 3rd (1998) Spectacle lenses and emmetropization: the role of optical defocus in regulating ocular development. Optom Vis Sci 75:388–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jimenez JR, Durban JJ, Anera RG (2002) Maximum disparity with acuvue bifocal contact lenses with changes in illumination. Optom Vis Sci 79:170–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scheiman M, Wick B (2008) Clinical management of binocular vision: heterophoric, accommodative, and eye movement disorders. Wolters Kluwer Health/lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alpern M (1949) Accommodation and convergence with contact lenses. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 26:379–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robertson DM, Ogle KN, Dyer JA (1967) Influence of contact lenses on accommodation: theoretic considerations and clinical study. Am J Ophthalmol 64:860–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carney LG, Woo GC (1977) Comparison of accommodation with rigid and flexible contact lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Optic 54:595–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hunt OA, Wolffsohn JS, García-Resúa C (2006) Ocular motor triad with single vision contact lenses compared to spectacle lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 29:239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jimenez R, Martinez-Almeida L, Salas C, Ortiz C (2011) Contact lenses vs spectacles in myopes: is there any difference in accommodative and binocular function? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249:925–935. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fulk GW, Cyert LA, Parker DE, West RW (2003) The effect of changing from glasses to soft contact lenses on myopia progression in adolescents. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 23:71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Felipe-Marquez G, Nombela-Palomo M, Palomo-Alvarez C, Cacho I, Nieto-Bona A (2017) Binocular function changes produced in response to overnight orthokeratology. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 255:179–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Felipe-Marquez G, Nombela-Palomo M, Cacho I, Nieto-Bona A (2015) Accommodative changes produced in response to overnight orthokeratology. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 253:619–626. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ruiz-Pomeda A, Perez-Sanchez B, Valls I, Prieto-Garrido FL, Gutierrez-Ortega R, Villa-Collar C (2018) MiSight Assessment Study Spain (MASS). A 2-year randomized clinical trial. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol.
  25. 25.
    Anstice NS, Phillips JR (2011) Effect of dual-focus soft contact lens wear on axial myopia progression in children. Ophthalmology 118:1152–1161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ruiz-Pomeda A, Pérez-Sánchez B, Prieto-Garrido FL, Gutiérrez-Ortega R, Villa-Collar C (2018) MiSight Assessment Study Spain: adverse events, tear film osmolarity, and discontinuations. Eye Contact Lens.
  27. 27.
    Pomeda AR, Pérez-Sánchez B, Cañadas Suárez MDP, Prieto Garrido FL, Gutiérrez-Ortega R, Villa-Collar C (2017) MiSight Assessment Study Spain: a comparison of vision-related quality-of-life measures between MiSight contact lenses and single-vision spectacles. Eye Contact Lens.
  28. 28.
    Jiménez R, Pérez MA, García JA, González MD (2004) Statistical normal values of visual parameters that characterize binocular function in children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 24:528–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scheiman M, Gallaway M, Frantz KA, Peters RJ, Hatch S, Cuff M et al (2003) Nearpoint of convergence: test procedure, target selection, and normative data. Optom Vis Sci 80:214–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gwiazda J, Thorn F, Bauer J, Held R (1993) Myopic children show insufficient accommodative response to blur. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34:690–694Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nakatsuka C, Hasebe S, Nonaka F, Ohtsuki H (2005) Accommodative lag under habitual seeing conditions: comparison between myopic and emmetropic children. Jpn J Ophthalmol 49:189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kang P, Wildsoet CF (2016) Acute and short-term changes in visual function with multifocal soft contact lens wear in young adults. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 39:133–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maples WC, Hoenes R (2007) Near point of convergence norms measured in elementary school children. Optom Vis Sci 84:224–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gwiazda J, Grice K, Thorn F (1999) Response AC/A ratios are elevated in myopic children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 19:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ciuffreda KJ, Rosenfield M, Chen HW (1997) The AC/a ratio, age and presbyopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 17:307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mutti DO, Jones LA, Moeschberger ML, Zadnik K (2000) AC/A ratio, age, and refractive error in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:2469–2478Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jiménez R, Martínez-Almeida L, Salas C, Ortíz C (2011) Contact lenses vs spectacles in myopes: is there any difference in accommodative and binocular function? Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249:925–935. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chen AH, O’Leary DJ (2002) Are there age differences in the accommodative response curve between 3 and 14 years of age? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 22:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Anderson HA, Glasser A, Manny RE, Stuebing KK (2010) Age-related changes in accommodative dynamics from preschool to adulthood. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51:614–622. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sreenivasan V, Irving EL, Bobier WR (2011) Effect of near adds on the variability of accommodative response in myopic children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 31:145–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mordi JA, Ciuffreda KJ (1998) Static aspects of accommodation: age and presbyopia. Vis Res 38:1643–1653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Charman WN, Radhakrishnan H (2009) Accommodation, pupil diameter and myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 29:72–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Abbott ML, Schmid KL, Strang NC (1998) Differences in the accommodation stimulus response curves of adult myopes and emmetropes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 18:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Norton TT, Gamlin PD (1999) The near response, emmetropia and myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 19:79–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mutti DO, Mitchell GL, Hayes JR, Jones LA, Moeschberger ML, Cotter SA et al (2006) Accommodative lag before and after the onset of myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:837–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gong CR, Troilo D, Richdale K (2017) Accommodation and phoria in children wearing multifocal contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 94:353–360. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Paune J, Thivent S, Armengol J, Quevedo L, Faria-Ribeiro M, Gonzalez-Meijome JM (2016) Changes in peripheral refraction, higher-order aberrations, and accommodative lag with a radial refractive gradient contact lens in young myopes. Eye Contact Lens 42:380–387. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Goss DA (1986) Effect of bifocal lenses on the rate of childhood myopia progression. Am J Optom Physiol Optic 63:135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Goss DA, Grosvenor T (1990) Rates of childhood myopia progression with bifocals as a function of nearpoint phoria: consistency of three studies. Optom Vis Sci 67:637–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fulk GW, Cyert LA, Parker DE (2000) A randomized trial of the effect of single-vision vs. bifocal lenses on myopia progression in children with esophoria. Optom Vis Sci 77:395–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alicia Ruiz-Pomeda
    • 1
    Email author return OK on get
  • Belén Pérez-Sánchez
    • 2
  • Pilar Cañadas
    • 3
  • Francisco Luis Prieto-Garrido
    • 4
  • Ramón Gutiérrez-Ortega
    • 5
  • César Villa-Collar
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Department of Pharmacy, Biotechnology, Nutrition, Optics and OptometryEuropean University of MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Statistics, Mathematics and Informatics, Area of Languages and Computer SystemsMiguel Hernández University of ElcheAlacantSpain
  3. 3.Ocular Surface Group. Institute of Applicate Opthalmobiology (IOBA), Department of Theoretical Physics, Atomic and OpticUniversity of ValladolidValladolidSpain
  4. 4.Department Optics I: Optometry and VisionUniversidad Complutense de MadridMadridSpain
  5. 5.Clínica oftalmológica NovovisiónMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations