Poster 227

by in  Poster Session 3

Influence of Orthokeratology Lens on Axial length Elongation and Myopic Progression in Childhood Myopia

Su Jin Kim, MD, PhD; Seung Uk Lee, MD, PhD
Department of Ophthalmology, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, School of Medicine, Gyeongsang National University
Changwon, South Korea

 

Introduction: To investigate the clinical effects of orthokeratology lens wear on inhibition of the myopic progression and axial length elongation in Korean children with myopia.

Methods: The authors reviewed out-patient records of 37 eyes of 19 patients wearing orthokeratology lenses. The 46 eyes of 23 patients wearing spectacles were included into the control group. We evaluated the relationship between orthokeratology lens wear and control group according to age, initial myopia, initial astigmatism, axial length elongation.

Results: There were no significant differences between two groups as for age, initial myopia, astigmatism, spherical equivalent, and axial length at baseline (t-test, p > 0.05). Significant reduction of refraction was shown in patients with wearing lenses after 1 year (t-test, p < 0.001). The mean axial length before and after 1 year was 24.62 ± 1.39 mm and 24.73 ± 1.28 mm respectively after lens wearing, and 24.59 ± 0.74mm and 24.80 ± 0.71 mm respectively after wearing glasses. The axial length elongation was 0.11 ± 0.12 mm, and 0.21 ± 0.07 mm in patients with wearing lenses and glasses, respectively, which showed statistically significant difference (t-test, p < 0.0001).

Discussion: The axial length elongation in the overnight orthokeratology group was significantly smaller than that in the glasses group. Althogh orthokeratology lens cannot completely arrest axial elongation in myopic children, it can retard it, suggesting the potential effect of this treatment for controlling the progression of myopia.

Conclusion: The orthokeratology lens was found to be effective in suppression of myopic progression through less axial length elongation, compared with the glasses.

References: 1. Foster PJ, Jiang Y. Epidemiology of myopia. Eye (Lond) 2014;28:202-8.
2. Fledelius HC. Is myopia getting more frequent? A cross-sectional study of 1416 Danes aged 16 years+. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1983;61:545-59.
3. Kim JC, Koo BS. A study of prevailing features and causes of myopia and visual impairment in urban school children. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 1988;29:165-81.
4. Han ER, Kang JE, Jun RM, Choi KR. Changes of refractive errors and optometric values in fourth graders at an urban elementary school in Korea. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2007;48:1119-25.
5. Lin LL, Shih YF, Hsiao CK, Chen CJ, Lee LA, Hung PT. Epidemiologic study of the prevalence and severity of myopia among schoolchildren in Taiwan in 2000. J Formos Med Assoc 2001;100:684-91.
6. Saw SM, Gazzard G, Shih-Yen EC, Chua WH. Myopia and associated pathological complications. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2005;25:381–91.
7. Morgan IG, Ohno-Matsui K, Saw SM. Myopia. Lancet 2012;379:1739–48.
8. Saw SM, Gazzard G, Au Eong KG, Tan DT. Myopia: attempts to arrest progression. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:1306–11.
9. Lee JJ, Fang PC, Yang IH, Chen CH, Lin PW, Lin SA, et al. Prevention of myopia progression with 0.05% atropine solution. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2006;22:41–46.
10. Tan DT, Lam DS, Chua WH, Shu-Ping DF, Crockett RS; Asian Pirenzepine Study Group. One-year multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel safety and efficacy study of 2% pirenzepine ophthalmic gel in children with myopia. Ophthalmology 2005;112:84-91.
11. Jensen H. Timolol maleate in the control of myopia. A preliminary report. Acta Ophthalmol Suppl 1988;185:128–9.
12. Shih YF, Hsiao CK, Chen CJ, Chang CW, Hung PT, Lin LL. An intervention trial on efficacy of atropine and multi-focal glasses in controlling myopic progression. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2001;79:233-6.
13. Walline JJ, Jones LA, Mutti DO, Zadnik K. A randomized trial of the effects of rigid contact lenses on myopia progression. Arch Ophth 2004;122:1760–6.
14. Cheung SW, Cho P. Subjective and objective assessments of the effect of orthokeratology–a cross-sectional study. Curr Eye Res 2004;28:121-7.
15. Carney LG. The basis for corneal shape change during contact lens wear. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1975;52:445-54.
16. Dave T, Ruston D. Current trends in modern orthokeratology. Ophthalmic physical Opt 1998;18:224-33.
17. Cho P, Cheung SW, Edwards M. The longitudinal orthokeratology research in children (LORIC) in Hong Kong: a pilot study on refractive changes and myopic control. Curr Eye Res 2005;30:71-80.
18. Swarbrick HA, Alharbi A, Watt K, Lum E, Kang P. Myopia control during orthokeratology lens wear in children using a novel study design. Ophthalmology 2015;122:620-30.
19. Walline JJ, Jones LA, Sinnott LT. Corneal reshaping and myopia progression. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93:1181–5.
20. Nichols JJ, Marsich MM, Nguyen M, Barr JT, Bullimore MA. Overnight orthokeratology. Optom Vis Sci 2000;77:252-9.
21. Jee DH, Hong ME, Kim MS. The efficacy and safety of Ortho-K LK(TM) Lens. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2003;44:706-11.
22. Shin DB, Yang KM, Lee SB, Kim MK, Lee JL. Effect of reverse geometry lens on correction of moderate-degree myopia and cornea. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2003;44:1748-56.
23. Chang JW, Choi TH, Lee HB. The efficacy and safety of reverse geometry lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2004;45:908-12.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment *