Short-Term Effects of Various Contact Lenses on Accommodative Function in Myopic Children.

IF 2 4区医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Eye & Contact Lens-Science and Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2025-04-17 DOI:10.1097/ICL.0000000000001183

Yunyun Chen, Chenglu Ding, Xue Li, Yingying Huang, Björn Drobe, Hao Chen, Jinhua Bao

{"title":"Short-Term Effects of Various Contact Lenses on Accommodative Function in Myopic Children.","authors":"Yunyun Chen, Chenglu Ding, Xue Li, Yingying Huang, Björn Drobe, Hao Chen, Jinhua Bao","doi":"10.1097/ICL.0000000000001183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To assess the short-term impact of different types of contact lenses on accommodation in the same group of myopic children compared with single-vision spectacle lenses.Methods: Thirty myopic children aged 10.2 ± 1.5 years were enrolled. Each participant was corrected with four different modalities in following sequence: single-vision spectacles (SVSP), single-vision soft contact lens (SVSCL), a high-addition multifocal soft contact lens (MFSCL), and orthokeratology lenses (OKL). Measurements included the dynamic accommodative stimulus-response curve (ASRC), distance accommodative facility (DAF), negative relative accommodation (NRA), and positive relative accommodation (PRA). Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction was performed.Results: The accommodative parameters differed among the four modalities except for the slope of ASRC ( F = 1.700, P = 0.173). Single-vision spectacle lens exhibited the highest accommodative lag area (10.08 ± 1.65 D 2 ) and the lowest objective accommodative amplitude (7.72 ± 0.93 D) and PRA (-2.51 ± 0.62 D) (all P < 0.05). Multifocal soft contact lens, OKL, and SVSCL showed no significant differences in accommodative lag area (8.93 ± 1.78, 7.98 ± 2.33, 8.44 ± 2.20 D 2 ), NRA (2.23 ± 0.33, 2.23 ± 0.38, 2.39 ± 0.33 D), PRA (-3.05 ± 0.78, -3.43 ± 1.05, 3.00 ± 1.02 D), or DAF (23.8 ± 6.99, 26.0 ± 8.23, 23.3 ± 7.07 D); however, OKL (8.68 ± 1.08 D) induced greater objective accommodative amplitude than SVSCL (8.26 ± 0.97 D) ( P = 0.010).Conclusions: Single-vision spectacles exhibited worse accommodative function than the other three modalities. However, no significant changes in accommodation were detected when using OKL or high-addition MFSCL compared with SVSCL, except higher objective accommodative amplitude with OKL than SVSCL.","PeriodicalId":50457,"journal":{"name":"Eye & Contact Lens-Science and Clinical Practice","volume":" ","pages":"254-260"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eye & Contact Lens-Science and Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000001183","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the short-term impact of different types of contact lenses on accommodation in the same group of myopic children compared with single-vision spectacle lenses.

Methods: Thirty myopic children aged 10.2 ± 1.5 years were enrolled. Each participant was corrected with four different modalities in following sequence: single-vision spectacles (SVSP), single-vision soft contact lens (SVSCL), a high-addition multifocal soft contact lens (MFSCL), and orthokeratology lenses (OKL). Measurements included the dynamic accommodative stimulus-response curve (ASRC), distance accommodative facility (DAF), negative relative accommodation (NRA), and positive relative accommodation (PRA). Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction was performed.

Results: The accommodative parameters differed among the four modalities except for the slope of ASRC ( F = 1.700, P = 0.173). Single-vision spectacle lens exhibited the highest accommodative lag area (10.08 ± 1.65 D 2 ) and the lowest objective accommodative amplitude (7.72 ± 0.93 D) and PRA (-2.51 ± 0.62 D) (all P < 0.05). Multifocal soft contact lens, OKL, and SVSCL showed no significant differences in accommodative lag area (8.93 ± 1.78, 7.98 ± 2.33, 8.44 ± 2.20 D 2 ), NRA (2.23 ± 0.33, 2.23 ± 0.38, 2.39 ± 0.33 D), PRA (-3.05 ± 0.78, -3.43 ± 1.05, 3.00 ± 1.02 D), or DAF (23.8 ± 6.99, 26.0 ± 8.23, 23.3 ± 7.07 D); however, OKL (8.68 ± 1.08 D) induced greater objective accommodative amplitude than SVSCL (8.26 ± 0.97 D) ( P = 0.010).

Conclusions: Single-vision spectacles exhibited worse accommodative function than the other three modalities. However, no significant changes in accommodation were detected when using OKL or high-addition MFSCL compared with SVSCL, except higher objective accommodative amplitude with OKL than SVSCL.

查看原文本刊更多论文

各种隐形眼镜对近视儿童适应功能的短期影响。

目的：评价同组近视儿童配戴不同类型的隐形眼镜与单视力眼镜对适应的短期影响。方法：选取年龄10.2±1.5岁的近视儿童30例。每个参与者按照以下顺序使用四种不同的方式进行矫正：单视力眼镜（SVSP），单视力软性接触镜（SVSCL），高附加多焦软性接触镜（MFSCL）和角膜塑形镜（OKL）。测量方法包括动态调节刺激反应曲线（ASRC）、距离调节便利（DAF）、负相对调节（NRA）和正相对调节（PRA）。采用Bonferroni校正进行重复测量方差分析。结果：除了ASRC斜率（F = 1.700, P = 0.173）外，4种方法的调节参数存在差异。单视力镜片的调节滞后面积最大（10.08±1.65 D2），物镜调节振幅最小（7.72±0.93 D）， PRA最小（-2.51±0.62 D）（P均< 0.05）。多焦软性隐形眼镜、OKL和SVSCL的调节滞后面积（8.93±1.78、7.98±2.33、8.44±2.20 D2）、NRA（2.23±0.33、2.23±0.38、2.39±0.33 D）、PRA（-3.05±0.78、-3.43±1.05、3.00±1.02 D）、DAF（23.8±6.99、26.0±8.23、23.3±7.07 D）差异无统计学意义；OKL（8.68±1.08 D）诱导的客观调节幅度大于SVSCL(8.26±0.97 D) （P = 0.010）。结论：单目眼镜的调节功能较其他三种眼镜差。然而，与SVSCL相比，OKL或高附加MFSCL的调节幅度没有显著变化，只是OKL的客观调节幅度高于SVSCL。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Eye & Contact Lens-Science and Clinical Practice OPHTHALMOLOGY-

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

4.30%

发文量

150

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Eye & Contact Lens: Science and Clinical Practice is the official journal of the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists (CLAO), an international educational association for anterior segment research and clinical practice of interest to ophthalmologists, optometrists, and other vision care providers and researchers. Focusing especially on contact lenses, it also covers dry eye disease, MGD, infections, toxicity of drops and contact lens care solutions, topography, cornea surgery and post-operative care, optics, refractive surgery and corneal stability (eg, UV cross-linking). Peer-reviewed and published six times annually, it is a highly respected scientific journal in its field.