Dataset Information

Peripheral refraction, relative peripheral refraction, and axial growth: 18-month data from the randomised study-Clinical study Of Near-sightedness; TReatment with Orthokeratology Lenses (CONTROL study).

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To investigate changes in peripheral and relative peripheral refraction (RPR) during orthokeratology lens (OKL) use in children, and predictors for myopia progression in a randomized controlled trial.

Methods

Refraction and axial length (AL) were measured at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months for children aged 6-12 years, with myopia of 0.5 to 4.75 dioptres (D) spherical component randomized to either OKL or single-vision spectacles (SVS) at baseline. Cycloplegic spherical equivalent refractive error (SEQ) was measured on-axis and eccentric at 10°, 20°, and 30° during nasal and temporal gaze in the horizontal plane with Shin-Nippon Nvision-K 5001. RPR was computed as SEQ_{(eccentricity)} minus SEQ_{(on axis)} . AL was measured with Lenstar LS900.

Results

Twenty-one and 28 subjects from the OKL and SVS groups, respectively were available for analysis. OKL wear induced significant myopic RPR at all eccentricities (p ≤ 0.004) whereas peripheral refraction only changed in two out of six eccentric measuring points. Baseline peripheral refraction SEQ at all eccentricities, baseline on-axis SEQ, and baseline RPR at 30° nasal eccentricity were positively correlated to treatment efficacy defined as change in AL.

Conclusion

We found no correlations between change in RPR and treatment efficacy defined as change in AL. Interestingly, our results suggest that the central emmetropisation that occurs during OKL-use accounts for most of the optical changes and to a lesser extent the mid-peripheral plus-zone of the lens.

SUBMITTER: Jakobsen TM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10087546 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Peripheral refraction, relative peripheral refraction, and axial growth: 18-month data from the randomised study-Clinical study Of Near-sightedness; TReatment with Orthokeratology Lenses (CONTROL study).

Jakobsen Trine M TM Søndergaard Anders P AP Møller Flemming F

Acta ophthalmologica 20220808 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>To investigate changes in peripheral and relative peripheral refraction (RPR) during orthokeratology lens (OKL) use in children, and predictors for myopia progression in a randomized controlled trial.<h4>Methods</h4>Refraction and axial length (AL) were measured at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months for children aged 6-12 years, with myopia of 0.5 to 4.75 dioptres (D) spherical component randomized to either OKL or single-vision spectacles (SVS) at baseline. Cycloplegic spherical equ ...[more]

PMID: 35941831

Similar Datasets

Project description:The aim of this study is to investigate if baseline relative peripheral refraction (RPR) influences the myopia control effects in Chinese myopic children wearing Defocus Incorporated Multiple Segments (DIMS) lenses. Peripheral refraction at 10°, 20°, and 30° nasal (10 N, 20 N, 30 N) and temporal (10 T, 20 T, 30 T) retina were measured at six-month intervals for children who participated in a 2-year randomized controlled trial. The relationship between the baseline peripheral refractions and myopia progression and axial length changes were analysed. A total of 79 children and 81 children in the DIMS and single vision (SV) group were investigated, respectively. In the DIMS group, more baseline myopic RPR spherical equivalent (SE) was associated with more myopic progression (10 N: r = 0.36, p = 0.001; 20 N: r = 0.35, p = 0.001) and greater axial elongation (10 N: r = −0.34, p = 0.001; 20 N: r = −0.29, p = 0.006) after adjusting for co-factors. In the SV group, baseline RPR had association with only myopia progression (10 N: r = 0.37, p = 0.001; 20 N: r = 0.36, p = 0.001; 30 N: r = 0.35, p = 0.002) but not with axial elongation after Bonferroni correction (p > 0.008). No statistically significant relationship was found between temporal retina and myopia progression or axial elongation in both groups. Children with baseline myopic RPR had statistically significant more myopia progression (mean difference around −0.40 D) and more axial elongation (mean difference 0.15 mm) when compared with the children having baseline hyperopic RPR in the DIMS group but not in the SV group. In conclusion, the baseline RPR profile may not influence future myopia progression or axial elongation for the SV lens wearers. However, DIMS lenses slowed down myopia progression and was better in myopia control for the children with baseline hyperopic RPR than the children with myopic RPR. This may partially explain why myopia control effects vary among myopic children. Customised myopic defocus for individuals may optimise myopia control effects, and further research to determine the optimal dosage, with consideration of peripheral retinal profile, is warranted.

Project description:PurposeTo determine the differences in myopia control efficiency and corneal reshaping between three different brands of orthokeratology (OK) lenses (Lucid, Euclid, and Alpha).MethodWe retrospectively reviewed subjects who started simultaneously using different brands of OK lenses. For each participant, every 6 months in the 19 months of following, the changes in axial length (AL), horizontal and vertical maximum distances of the treatment zone (HMDTZ and VMDTZ), width of the high convex zone (WHCZ), distance of decentration, and horizontal and vertical components of the decentration vector were measured. The average values of the above data, the average value of the decentration vector (ADV), and the average value of decentration calculated algebraically (ADA) were calculated.ResultsAll the three pairs (Lucid (n = 46) vs. Euclid (n = 46): groups Lucid-versus-Euclid-Lucid (LE-L) and LE-E), Lucid (n = 50) vs. Alpha (n = 50): groups LA-L and LA-A), and Euclid (n = 17) vs. Alpha (n = 17): groups EA-E and EA-A) showed good comparability. Regarding the change in AL during 19 months, none of the pairs showed significant differences (LE-L:0.27 ± 0.24 mm, LE-E:0.31 ± 0.24 mm (p = 0.68); LA-L:0.36 ± 0.26 mm, LA-A:0.36 ± 0.27 mm (p = 0.85); EA-E:0.34 ± 0.27 mm, EA-A:0.41 ± 0.28 mm (p = 0.63)). Regarding treatment zone, Lucid showed the largest HMDTZ and VMDTZ (both p < 0.05). Regarding the WHCZ, none of the pairs showed significant differences. For the ADV and ADA, Lucid had more ADV and ADA than Euclid (ADV: LE-L:0.73 ± 0.44 mm, LE-E:0.55 ± 0.45 mm, p < 0.05; ADA: LE-L:0.80 ± 0.41 mm, LE-E:0.63 ± 0.44 mm, p < 0.05), and the remaining pairs showed no significant difference. For the overall cohort with 113 eyes, the change in AL was weakly correlated with both ADV and ADA (both p < 0.05). Regarding the ADV/ADA, all pairs showed no significant differences, indicating equal lens position stability.ConclusionAfter OK, there were no significant differences between the different pairs of the three brands in AL growth, WHCZ, or lens position stability, although Lucid had a larger treatment zone than Euclid and Alpha, and Lucid had more decentration than Euclid. A larger lens decentration were weakly related to less AL growth.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the peripheral refraction and spherical aberration profiles along three visual field meridians of 16 commercial single vision (SV), bifocal (BF) and multifocal (MF) test contact lenses with a single vision control.MethodForty-four participants [24.2±2.4 years, SE: -0.50 to -4.50D] were randomly fitted, contra-laterally, with 6 SV's [Air Optix Aqua (control), Acuvue Oasys, Biofinity, Clariti, Night & Day and Proclear], 3 BF's [Acuvue Bifocal low and high add, MiSight] and 8 MF's [Proclear D & N in 1.5 and 2.5D adds; AirOptix, PureVision low & high adds]. Peripheral refraction was performed across horizontal, oblique and vertical meridians, with lenses on eye using the BHVI-EyeMapper. The power vectors M, J0, J45 and the spherical aberration coefficient were analysed. The peripheral refraction and aberration profiles of the test lenses were compared with the profiles of the control lens using curvature and slope coefficients.ResultsCompared to the control, a relative peripheral hyperopic shift (M), a less negative J0 curvature coefficient along the horizontal meridian, a less positive J0 curvature coefficient along the vertical meridian, a less negative J45 curvature coefficient along the oblique meridian and a more positive spherical aberration curvature coefficient along most meridians was seen with the Acuvue Bifocal and all center-near multifocal lenses. For the center-distance multifocal lenses the direction of the curvature coefficients of the same refraction and aberration components was opposite to that of the center-near lenses. The greatest differences in the slope coefficients when compared to the control were found for the Acuvue Bifocal lenses and all multifocal contact lenses for the refractive component M and the spherical aberration coefficient along the horizontal visual field meridian, with the Acuvue Bifocal and the center-near multifocal lenses having more positive coefficients and the center-distance lenses having more negative coefficients.ConclusionWhen worn on eye, different commercially available lens types produce differences in the direction and magnitude of the peripheral refraction and spherical aberration profiles along different visual field meridians. This information may be relevant to refractive development and myopia control.

Dataset Information

Peripheral refraction, relative peripheral refraction, and axial growth: 18-month data from the randomised study-Clinical study Of Near-sightedness; TReatment with Orthokeratology Lenses (CONTROL study).

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Peripheral refraction, relative peripheral refraction, and axial growth: 18-month data from the randomised study-Clinical study Of Near-sightedness; TReatment with Orthokeratology Lenses (CONTROL study).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets