Résumé
Abstract Introduction Low-Level Red-Light (LLRL) Therapy is a safe and natural way to promote healing and reduce inflammation in the body. When it comes to treating myopia in children, LLRL therapy is recent, and its efficacy and safety still are not clear. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature for LLRL was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines on November 5, 2022. Databases, including PUBMED, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase were queried. A meta-analysis of random effects was conducted. Inclusion criteria included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) or observational studies where LLRL therapy was used in children (3‒15 years old) with myopia. Exclusion criteria were studies with other ocular abnormalities. Efficacy was evaluated through the mean change in Axial Length (AL) and cycloplegic Spherical Equivalent Error (SER), while safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse effects. Results A total of 5 final studies were included (4 RCTs, and 1 observational), in which 685 total patients were analyzed. The mean age was 9.7 ± 0.66 years, with 48,2% female patients. The number of eyes in the LRLL arm is 714 and, in the control, arm is 656. LLRL showed better results in SER and AL mean change (OR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.83; p < 0.00001, and MD -0.33; 95% CI -0.52 to -0.13; p = 0.001, respectively), in comparison to the control group. There was no significant difference in adverse effects between groups (MD = 5.76; 95% CI 0.66 to 50.14; p = 0.11). Conclusion LLRL therapy is a non-invasive, effective, and safe short-term treatment option; however, long-term evaluation, particularly in comparison to other therapies, requires additional investigation.
Résumé
ABSTRACT Objective: To study vertex-optical distance variation and estimate its impact on manifest refraction. Methods: Prospective study in a private clinic using the Vision-S™ 700 with five forehead positions. Forehead on the third position showed the closest vertex-optical distance of 12mm. Results: Analysis of 52 eyes from 26 patients revealed mean differences in vertex-optical distance of 12.25mm (right eye) and 11.75mm (left eye). A 2mm change in vertex-optical distance resulted in a 0.05D change for a 5D spherical equivalent and 0.20D for a 10D equivalent. Conclusion: Vertex-optical distance varies among patients and is influenced by forehead adjustment. These variations impact refraction accuracy and treatment evaluation. Adjusting the forehead to the third position on the Vision-S™ 700 is recommended.
RESUMO Objetivo: Estudar a variação da distância vértice-óptico, de acordo com o ajuste da testa, e estimar seu impacto na refração manifesta. Métodos: Estudo prospectivo realizado em clínica privada. A refração foi realizada utilizando cinco posições preestabelecidas com o Vision-Sa 700. A testa disposta na terceira posição apresentou distância vértice do refrator mais próxima de 12mm. Resultados: Foram analisados 52 olhos de 26 pacientes. A diferença média da distância vértice do refrator no olho direito foi de 12,25mm (variação de 11,50mm) e, no olho esquerdo, 11,75mm (variação de 12,00mm). O impacto foi de 2mm na distância vértice do refrator, fomentando em uma mudança de 0,05D para um equivalente esférico de 5D e 0,20D para um equivalente de 10D. Conclusão: A distância vértice do refrator varia entre pacientes, estando relacionada ao ajuste da testa. As variações afetam a precisão da refração, impactando no ajuste dos óculos, das lentes de contato e na avaliação pós-operatória de cirurgia refrativa. Sugerimos ajustar a posição da testa para terceira posição no Vision-S™ 700, se a distância vértice do refrator não for medida em todos os pacientes.