4.3 Article

Long-term Efficacy of Orthokeratology Contact Lens Wear in Controlling the Progression of Childhood Myopia

期刊

CURRENT EYE RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 5, 页码 713-720

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/02713683.2016.1221979

关键词

Axial length; long-term efficacy; myopia control; myopia progression; orthokeratology

资金

  1. Menicon Co., Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The primary outcome of this study is to compare the axial length growth of white European myopic children wearing orthokeratology contact lenses (OK) to a control group (CT) over a 7-year period. Methods: Subjects 6-12 years of age with myopia -0.75 to -4.00DS and astigmatism 1.00DC were prospectively allocated OK or distance single-vision spectacles (SV) correction. Measurements of axial length (Zeiss IOLMaster), corneal topography, and cycloplegic refraction were taken at 6-month intervals over a 2-year period. Subjects were invited to return to the clinic approximately 5 years later (i.e., 7 years after the beginning of the study) for assessment of their ocular refractive and biometric components. The CT consisted of 4 SV and 12 subjects who switched from SV to soft contact lens wear after the initial 2 years of SV lens wear. Changes in axial length relative to baseline over a 7-year period were compared between groups. Results: Fourteen and 16 subjects from the OK and CT groups, respectively, were examined 6.7 0.5 years after the beginning of the study. Statistically significant changes in the axial length were found over time and between groups (both p < 0.001), but not for the time*group interaction (p = 0.125). The change in the axial length for the OK group was 22% (p = 0.328), 42% (p = 0.007), 40% (p = 0.020), 41% (p = 0.013), and 33% (p = 0.062) lower than the CT group following 6, 12, 18, 24, and 84 months of lens wear, respectively. Conclusion: A trend toward a reduction in the rate of axial elongation of the order of 33% was found in the OK group in comparison to the CT group following 7 years of lens wear.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据