Effect of Orthokeratologic Lenses on Myopic Progression in Childhood

Ryung Kim Jae; Young Chung Tae; Hui Lim Dong; Hyun Bae Ji

doi:10.3341/jkos.2013.54.3.401

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.54(3) > 1009612

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Jae, Tae, Dong, and Ji: Effect of Orthokeratologic Lenses on Myopic Progression in Childhood

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2007;54(3):401-407.

Published online: 24 August 2007

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2013.54.3.401

Effect of Orthokeratologic Lenses on Myopic Progression in Childhood

Ryung Kim Jae, MD, Young Chung Tae, MD, PhD, Hui Lim Dong, MD, Hyun Bae Ji, MD

Department of Ophthalmology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Tae Young Chung, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Samsung Medical Center #81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 135-710, Korea Tel: 82-2-3410-3569, Fax: 82-2-3410-0074, E-mail: tychung@skku.edu

Received 26 July 2006 Accepted 8 May 2007

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The present study assessed the influence of overnight orthokeratology (ortho-k) on the myopic progression in Korean children and analyzed factors affecting myopic progression.

Methods

The ortho-k group was comprised of 31 patients satisfying the inclusion criteria for ortho-k. In the ortho-k group, spherical equivalent refractive error (SER) was measured at baseline, and after 2 weeks, 6 and 12 months. The control group was comprised of 31 patients who were matched according to age, gender, and baseline SER of the ortho-k subjects.

Results

In the ortho-k group, the mean ± SD changes in SER from 2 weeks to 6 months, 6 to 12 months, and 2 weeks to 12 months were -0.17 ± 0.50 D, -0.04 ± 0.76 D, and -0.21 ± 0.78 D, respectively. In the control group, the changes in SER from baseline to 6 months, 6 to 12 months, and baseline to 12 months were -0.38 ± 0.42 D, -0.44 ± 0.38 D, and -0.82 ± 0.68 D, respectively. Significant differences were found between changes in SER from 6 to 12 months and from baseline to 12 months (p < 0.05). In the ortho-k group, relationships between the changes of SER for 1 year and the numeric values of baseline measurements were analyzed. When comparing the results between the group of SER change ≥ -0.5 D with the group of SER change < -0.5 D, numeric values of white-to-white diameters of the 2 groups were different, and a significant correlation was found between the range of SER change and the white-to-white diameter (Pearson's r = -0.471, p = 0.008).

Conclusions

Ortho-k is effective for slowing myopic progression. The smaller the white-to-white diameter, the slower the myopic progression could be.

Go to :

Keywords: Orbit, Myopic progression, Overnight orthokeratology, Spherical equivalent refractive error, White-to-white diameter

References

1. Lin LL, Shin YF, Hsiao CK, et al. Epidemiologic study of the prevalence and severity of myopia among schoolchildren in Taiwan 2000. J Formos Med Assoc. 2001; 100:684–91.

2. Sperduto RD, Seigel D, Roberts J, et al. Prevalence of myopia in the Unites States. Arch Ophthalmol. 1983; 101:405–7.

3. Tan DT, Lam DS, Chua WH, et al. 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.

4. Bartlett JD, Niemann K, Houde B, et al. A tolerability study of pirenzepine ophthalmic gel in myopia children. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2003; 19:271–9.

5. Schwartz JT. Results of a monozygotic cotwin control study on a treatment for myopia. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1981; 69:249–58.

6. Lee JJ, Fang PC, Yang IH, et al. Prevention of myopia progression with 0.05% atropine solution. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2006; 22:41–6.

7. Shih YF, Hsiao K, Chen CJ, et al. An intervention trial on efficacy of atropine and multi-focal glasses in controlling myopia progression. Acta Ophthalmol. 2001; 79:233–6.

8. Grosvenor T, Perrigin J, Perrigin D, et al. Use of silicone-acrylate contact lenses for the control of myopia: Results after two years of lens wear. Optom Vis Sci. 1989; 66:41–7.

9. Leung JTM, Brown B. Progression of myopia in Hong Kong Chinese schoolchildren is slowed by wearing progressive lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 1999; 76:346–54.

10. Rah MJ, Jackson JM, Jones LA, et al. Overnight orthokeratology: Preliminary results of the Lenses and Overnight Orhokeratology (LOOK) study. Optom Vis Sci. 2002; 79:598–605.

11. Cheung SW, Cho P. Subjective and objective assessments of the effect of orthokeratology: A cross-sectional study. Curr Eye Res. 2004; 28:121–7.

12. Cheung SW, Cho P, Fan D. Asymmetrical increase in axial length in the two eyes of monocular orthokeratology patient. Optom Vis Sci. 2004; 81:653–6.

13. 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.

14. Walline JJ, Jones LA, Sinnott LT. Corneal reshaping and myopia progression. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009; 93:2852–8.

15. Kakita T, Hiraoka T, Oshika T. Influence of overnight orthokeratology on axial elongation in childhood myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52:2170–4.

16. Edwards MH, Li RW, Lam CS, et al. The Hong Kong Progressive lens myopia control study: Study design and main findings. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002; 43:2852–8.

17. Walline JJ, Jones LA, Mutti DO, et al. A randomized trial of the effects of rigid contact lenses on myopia progression. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004; 122:1760–6.

18. Lee WH, Park YK, Seo JM, et al. The inhibitory effect of myopic and astigmatic progression by orthokeratology lens. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2011; 52:1269–74.

19. Smith EL, Kee CS. Ramamirtham R, et al. Peripheral vision can influence eye growth and refractive development in infant mokeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46:3965–72.

20. Mutti DO, Hayes JR, Mitchell GL, et al. Refractive error, axial length, and relative peripheral refractive error before and after the onset of myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48:2510–9.

21. Charman WN, Mountford J, David AA, et al. Peripheral refraction in orthokeratology patients. Optom Vis Sci. 2006; 83:641–8.

Go to :

Figure 1.

The change of spherical equivalent refractive errors for 6 months and 12 months. In ortho-k group, the mean±SD changes in SER from 2 weeks to 6 months and 2 weeks to 12 months were -0.17 ± 0.50 D and -0.21 ± 0.78 D, respectively. In the control group, the changes in SER from baseline to 6 months and baseline to 12 months were -0.38 ± 0.42 D and -0.82 ± 0.68 D, respectively. ^*Spherical equivalent refractive error.

undefined

Figure 2.

The change of spherical equivalent refractive errors for one year and white-to-white diameters at baseline. The change of spherical equivalent refractive errors (SER) for one year was calculated by subtracting baseline SER from SER of 12 months. A significant correlation was found between the change of SER for one year and white-to-white diameters at baseline (Pearson's r=-0.471, p=0.008). ^*Spherical equivalent refractive error.

undefined

Table 1.

Baseline Data of 31 Orthokeratology and 31 Control Groups

	OK (n=31)	Control (n=31)	p-value
Sex (M : F)	22 : 9	22 : 9	1.000^†
Age (mean ± SD, years)	8.58 ± 1.73	8.42 ± 1.75	0.716^‡
SER^* (mean ± SD, D)	-2.54 ± 1.54	-2.54 ± 1.59	0.992^‡

^* Spherical equivalent refractive error;

^† Chi square test;

^‡ Unpaired t-test.

Table 2.

Changes of the Spherical Equivalent Refractive Error (D) at Each Stage of the Study of 31 Orthokeratology and 31 Control Groups

	OK (D) (n=31)	Control (D) (n=31)	p-value^†
Baseline (Initial^*) to 6 months	-0.17 ± 0.50	-0.38 ± 0.42	0.069
6 months to 12 months	-0.04 ± 0.76	-0.44 ± 0.38	0.011
Baseline (Initial^*) to 12 months	-0.21 ± 0.78	-0.82 ± 0.68	0.002

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

^* Initial spherical equivalent refractive errors of OK groups were measured after two weeks of using OK lens;

^† Unpaired t-test.

Table 3.

Comparison between myopic progression and non-progression groups

	Myopic progression group (n = 14)	Myopic non-progression group (n = 17)	p-value
SER^* changes during 1-year (D)	-0.87 ± 0.37	0.35 ± 0.58	0.000^†
Gender (male : female)	9 : 5	13 : 4	0.693^‡
Age (year)	8.43 ± 1.99	8.71 ± 1.53	0.570^†
Baseline SER (D)	-2.44 ± 1.76	-2.63 ± 1.39	0.518^†
Axial length (mm)	24.63 ± 0.52	24.78 ± 0.88	0.449^†
Central corneal thickness (#x00B5;m)	535 ± 37	529 ± 40	0.779^†
K_max (D)	42.8 ± 1.6	43.1 ± 1.4	0.570^†
K_min (D)	42. 0 ± 1.4	42.2 ± 1.2	0.860^†
Sim K's astigmatism (D)	0.8 ± 0.5	0.9 ± 0.3	0.138^†
Anterior BFS^§ (D)	41.5 ± 1.2	41.6 ± 1.2	0.739^†
Posterior BFS^§ (D)	51.0 ± 1.7	51.7 ± 1.8	0.518^†
Eccentricity (e)	0.52 ± 0.22	0.52 ± 0.17	0.984^†
ACD^ύ (mm)	3.25 ± 0.21	3.17 ± 0.08	30.316^†
VCD^≠ (mm)	21.39 ± 0.52	21.61 ± 0.90	0.101^†
White-to-White diameter (mm)	11.96 ± 0.29	11.66 ± 0.28	0.008^†
Pupil Diameter (mm)	4.49 ± 0.67	4.22 ± 0.35	0.297^†

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

^* Spherical equivalent refractive error;

^† Mann-Whitney U-test;

^‡ Chi-Square test;

^§ Best fit sphere;

^ύ Anterior chamber depth;

^≠ Vitreous chamber depth.

TOOLS

Similar articles