RESUMEN
AIM: To compare the effects of night-wearing orthokeratology lenses and frame glasses on the treatment of juvenile myopia, and provide reference for the selection of myopia treatment methods in adolescents.METHODS: A prospective study was conducted on 106 adolescent myopia patients who received treatment in our hospital from June to November 2020. According to the wishes of patients, they were divided into two groups with 53 cases in each group. The control group was given regular frame glasses after optometry, while the observation group was given night-wearing orthokeratology lenses. The uncorrected visual acuity(LogMAR), refractive index(spherical equivalent and cylindrical lens power), and ocular biological parameters(axial length, central corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth and lens thickness)were compared between the two groups.RESULTS: The uncorrected visual acuity(LogMAR)of the observation group was lower than that of the control group at 1a after treatment(0.51±0.12 vs. 0.73±0.15), and the spherical equivalent(-0.23±0.05 vs. -5.32±1.35D)and cylindrical lens power(-1.53±0.22 vs. -1.97±0.35DC)were smaller than those of the control group(P<0.001). The axial length of the eyes in the two groups increased at 1a after treatment and the axial length in the control group was longer(25.53±0.84 vs. 25.95±0.83 mm); the lens thickness of the observation group was increased compared with that before treatment(3.39±0.19 vs. 3.31±0.15 mm; P<0.05). After 1a treatment, the accommodative amplitude(14.29±1.37 vs. 12.90±1.07D), accommodative facility(11.05±2.09 vs. 7.59±1.82cpm), and total staining rate of corneal epithelium in the observation group were higher than those in the control group(15.1% vs. 1.9%), and the accommodative lag was lower than that in the control group(0.55±0.11 vs. 0.97±0.30D; P<0.05). There were no significant differences in corneal cell density(3197.23±249.66 vs. 3207.41±258.14 cells/mm2), corneal endothelial cell area(309.27±28.04 vs. 312.62±24.95mm2)and the incidence of complications between the two groups before and after treatment(5.7% vs. 9.4%; P>0.05).CONCLUSION: Night-wearing orthokeratology lenses can improve uncorrected visual acuity in adolescent patients with myopia, reduce the spherical equivalent and cylindrical lens power, and improve the accommodation-related parameters, but has no significant effect on the corneal function.
RESUMEN
Objective To evaluate of the effect and safety of wearing orthokeratology contact lens or frame glasses for controlling myopia in children. Methods The clinical data from myopia children, who wore orthokeratology contact lens or frame glasses to control myopia, were analyzed retrospectively. Of 219 children (396 eyes), 145 children (277 eyes) wore orthokeratology contact lens, and 74 (119) frame glasses. The changes of diopter, axial length and corneal endothelial cells were observed and compared one year after treatment in the two groups. Results After wearing one year, the diopter and the variation of diopter were significantly less in the children wearing orthokeratology contact lens than those in the children wearing frame glasses ([-3.03±0.89] DS vs [-3.83±1.25] DS, [-0.84±0.90] DS vs [-1.83±0.71] DS; both P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the axial length between the children wearing orthokeratology contact lens and frame glasses. While the extension of axial length was significantly less in the children wearing orthokeratology contact lens than that in the children wearing frame glasses ([0.14±0.15] mm vs [0.40±0.17] mm, P<0.05). No significant differences in the area or density of corneal endothelial cells were found between the children wearing orthokeratology contact lens and frame glasses. Conclusion Wearing orthokeratology contact lens can effectively control myopia in children within one year, and it had no adverse effects on corneal function.
RESUMEN
·AIM: To study the effects of orthokeratology, low concentration atropine and frame glasses on juvenile myopia prevention and control. ·METHODS: A total of 120 juvenile patients (240 eyes) with mild to moderate myopia were chosen in our hospital from January 2016 to July 2016. They were divided into 3 groups voluntarily. Children in orthokeratology group (40 cases, 80 eyes) were treated with orthokeratology; children in low concentration atropine group (40 cases, 80 eyes) were treated with low concentration atropine; children in frame glasses group (40 cases, 80 eyes ) were treated with frame glasses. After 18mo follow-up, refractive degree and ocular axial length of three groups were statistically analyzed. · RESULTS: After 18mo, diopters of children in orthokeratology group and atropine group were lower than those of children in frame glasses group (P<0. 05). The diopter differences between before and after treatment of orthokeratology group and atropine group were lower than that of the frame glasses group ( P<0. 05 ), there was no significant differences between orthokeratology group and atropine group(P>0. 05). The axial growth of children in orthokeratology group and atropine group were lower than those of children in frame glasses group ( P<0. 05 ). The axial length differences between before and after treatment of orthokeratology group and atropine group were lower than that of the frame glasses group (P<0. 05); there was no significant differences between orthokeratology group and atropine group(P>0. 05). · CONCLUSION: Both orthokeratology and low concentration atropine can effectively control the progress of diopter and axial length in juvenile myopia, and their curative effects were better than frame glasses. During the 18mo observation period, the curative effects of orthokeratology and atropine have no significant differences.
RESUMEN
@#AIM: To observe and compare the accommodative responses of myopic teenagers with orthokeratology lenses and frame glasses.<p>METHODS: One hundred and twenty myopic teenagers(240 eyes)aged 10-16y were selected and divided into experimemtal group(orthokeratology lens group)and control group(frame glasses group), with 60 cases(120 eyes)in each group. The accommodative response before and after correction of all the cases in the two groups were followed up and compared after 1, 3, 6 and 12mo.<p>RESULTS: A total of 113 patients(226 eyes)completed the experiment, including 54 patients(108 eyes)in the experimental group and 59 patients(118 eyes)in the control group. Both the two groups showed accommodative lag which gradually decreased with the wearing time. The accommodative lag before and after correction in the experimental group and control group were respectively(1.22±0.47, 0.91±0.39, 0.77±0.40, 0.65±0.32, 0.51±0.22),(1.23±0.48, 1.05±0.41, 0.90±0.49, 0.83±0.46, 0.69±0.33)D. The effects of measurement time on accommodative lag of each group were significant(<i>F</i>=195.229, 142.361, 323.484, <i>P</i><0.05). The interaction between the group and the measurement time also had significant effects(<i>F</i>=11.222,<i>P</i><0.05). But the interaction between eye and measurement time had no significant effects(<i>F</i>=0.025,0.023,<i>P</i>>0.05).The accommodative lags in the orthokeratology group were smaller than the frame glasses group after correction(<i>t</i>=-2.587, -2.241, -3.522, -4.587, <i>P</i><0.05),but no significant difference before correction(<i>t</i>=-0.07,<i>P</i>>0.05).<p>CONCLUSION: Both frame glasses and orthokeratology can improve accommodative response and reduce accommodation lag of juvenile myopia, but the effect of wearing orthokeratology is superior to frame glasses.