This web site is no longer actively maintained. Please visit for up to date information.
Powered by Google
This Month
Ocular Surface Characteristics of the Asian Eye
Meeting Synopsis
Academy 2010
pective Analysis of Risk Factors Associated With Contact Lens Induced Inflammatory Events During Continuous Wear
Feature Review
Adequate tear mixing under a soft contact lens may play an important role in minimizing certain > more
Tell a friend
> Home
> About Us
> Affiliates
> Contact Us
> Disclaimer
> Site Map


The Silicone Hydrogels website is partially supported through an educational grant from CIBA VISION

Feature Review | Previous Articles
December 2003


Article Review

Desmond Fonn

Professor, School of Optometry, University of Waterloo
Director, Centre for Contact Lens Research


Jackie Tan's editorial has described how many more pre-presbyopes wear contact lenses than presbyopes. As presbyopes (over the age of 45) are the fastest growing of the population we are faced with the challenge of providing these patients with adequate vision correction in a contact lens form.

While soft and rigid lens bifocals can be used, their limitations are obvious and of course there are no simultaneous soft lens bifocals that are made with Silicone Hydrogel lenses. We are all hopeful of that eventuating, with better designs and ultimately a translating silicone hydrogel contact lens.

However, until that time, if you are concerned about corneal response, especially in hyperopic presbyopes as has been clearly elucidated by Tan and Hines, then monovision is the answer.

To assist you with a review of the subject, we have included a bibliography of monovision articles. Happy reading.

Reference List

Back A. Factors influencing success and failure in monovision. International Contact Lens Clinic 1995; 22 :165-72.

Back AP, Woods R, Holden BA. The comparative visual performance of monovision and various concentric bifocals. British Contact Lens Association Journal 1987; 10 :46-7.

Barr, J. A. "Bifocals, multifocals, monovision - what works today." Contact Lens Spectrum 18.5 (2003): 41-44.

Collins MJ, Bruce AS. Factors influencing performance with monovision. British Contact Lens Association Journal 1994; 17 :83-9.

Collins MJ, Goode A, Tait AW, Shuley V. Monovision: the patient`s perspective. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 1994; 77 :69-75.

Erickson P, McGill EC. Role of visual acuity, stereoacuity, and ocular dominance in monovision patient success. Optometry and Vision Science 1992; 69 :761-4.

Hine N, Holden BA. Performance of low versus high water content plus lenses for presbyopes. International Contact Lens Clinic 1992; 19 :257-63.

Jain, S., I. Arora, and D. T. Azar. "Success of monovision in presbyopes: review of the literature and potential applications to refractive surgery." Survey of Ophthalmology 40.6 (1996): 491-99.

Johannsdottir, K.R. "Monovision: a Review of the Scientific Literature" Optometry and Vision Science 2001; 78(9):646-51.

Josephson, J. et al. "Monovision: a proposed position paper." Optician 201.5295 (1991):18-23.

Josephson JE, Erickson P, Back A, Holden BA, Harris M, Tomlinson A et al. Monovision. Journal of the American Optometric Association 1990; 61 :820-6.

Mertz GW, Nason RJ, Rigel LE, Fontana FD, Snyder RP, Klein P. Monovision with disposable and daily-wear two-week replacement contact lenses. International Contact Lens Clinic 1994; 21 :57-66.

Westin, E., B. Wick, and R. B. Harrist. "Factors influencing success of monovision contact lens fitting: survey of contact lens diplomates." Optometry 71.12 (2000): 757-63.

Tell a friend
All rights reserved, copyright 2002 - 2007