Effect of Orthokeratology on myopia progression: twelve-year results of a retrospective cohort study

Yueh-Chang Lee, Jen-Hung Wang, Cheng-Jen Chiu, Yueh-Chang Lee, Jen-Hung Wang, Cheng-Jen Chiu

Abstract

Background: Several studies reported the efficacy of orthokeratology for myopia control. Somehow, there is limited publication with follow-up longer than 3 years. This study aims to research whether overnight orthokeratology influences the progression rate of the manifest refractive error of myopic children in a longer follow-up period (up to 12 years). And if changes in progression rate are found, to investigate the relationship between refractive changes and different baseline factors, including refraction error, wearing age and lens replacement frequency. In addition, this study collects long-term safety profile of overnight orthokeratology.

Methods: This is a retrospective study of sixty-six school-age children who received overnight orthokeratology correction between January 1998 and December 2013. Thirty-six subjects whose baseline age and refractive error matched with those in the orthokeratology group were selected to form control group. These subjects were followed up at least for 12 months. Manifest refractions, cycloplegic refractions, uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuities, power vector of astigmatism, corneal curvature, and lens replacement frequency were obtained for analysis.

Results: Data of 203 eyes were derived from 66 orthokeratology subjects (31 males and 35 females) and 36 control subjects (22 males and 14 females) enrolled in this study. Their wearing ages ranged from 7 years to 16 years (mean ± SE, 11.72 ± 0.18 years). The follow-up time ranged from 1 year to 13 years (mean ± SE, 6.32 ± 0.15 years). At baseline, their myopia ranged from -0.5 D to -8.0 D (mean ± SE, -3.70 ± 0.12 D), and astigmatism ranged from 0 D to -3.0 D (mean ± SE, -0.55 ± 0.05 D). Comparing with control group, orthokeratology group had a significantly (p < 0.001) lower trend of refractive error change during the follow-up periods. According to the analysis results of GEE model, greater power of astigmatism was found to be associated with increased change of refractive error during follow-up years.

Conclusions: Overnight orthokeratology was effective in slowing myopia progression over a twelve-year follow-up period and demonstrated a clinically acceptable safety profile. Initial higher astigmatism power was found to be associated with increased change of refractive error during follow-up years.

Keywords: Contact lenses; Myopia; Myopia control; Optical intervention; Orthokeratology.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee Review Board of Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital, Hualien, Taiwan (REC No.: IRB103–17-B).

We confirmed that all written consents were obtained from participants. For those participants under the age of 16, the consent forms were signed by the parents on behalf of those participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Trend of refractive error change. The trend of refractive error change during year 0 to year 2 for OK and control groups were 0.17 ± 0.02 D and 0.52 ± 0.03 D (mean ± SE), respectfully. The trend of refractive error change during year 2 to year 4 for OK and control groups were 0.23 ± 0.03 D and 0.50 ± 0.03 D (mean ± SE), respectfully. The trend of refractive error change during year 4 to year 6 for OK and control groups were 0.28 ± 0.03 D and 0.47 ± 0.03 D (mean ± SE), respectfully. The trend of refractive error change during year 6 to year 8 for OK and control groups were 0.32 ± 0.05 D and 0.37 ± 0.04 D (mean ± SE), respectfully. Asterisk (*) denotes statistically significant difference between OK and control groups
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Trend of refractive error change (a) By different wearing age groups (b) By initial myopic refraction groups (c) By initial astigmatism groups and (d) By stable lens change groups. Asterisk (*) denotes statistically significant difference between OK and control groups

References

    1. Angle J, Wissmann DA. The epidemiology of myopia. Am J Epidemiol. 1980;111:220–228. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112889.
    1. Javitt JC, Chiang YP. The socio-economic aspects of laser refractive surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112:1526–1530. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1994.01090240032022.
    1. Dandona R, Dandona L. Refractive error blindness. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:237–243.
    1. McCarty CA. Uncorrected refractive error. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:521–522. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2006.090233.
    1. Wensor M, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. Prevalence and risk factors of myopia in Victoria, Australia. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:658–663. doi: 10.1001/archopht.117.5.658.
    1. Vitale S, Ellwein L, Cotch MF, et al. Prevalence of refractive error in the United States, 1999-2004. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126:1111–1119. doi: 10.1001/archopht.126.8.1111.
    1. Lin LL, Shih YF, Hsiao CK, et al. Epidemiologic study of the prevalence and severity of myopia among school children in Taiwan in 2000. J Formos Med Assoc. 2001;100:684–691.
    1. Wang TJ, Chiang TH, Wang TH, et al. Changes of the ocular refraction among freshmen in National Taiwan University between 1988 and 2005. Eye(Lond) 2009;23:1168–1169.
    1. Liu HH, Xu L, Wang YX, et al. Prevalence and progression of myopic retinopathy in Chinese adults: the Beijing eye study. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:1763–1768. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.01.020.
    1. Yannuzzi LA, Sorenson JA, Sobel RS, et al. Risk-factors for idiopathic rhegmatogenous retinal-detachment. Am J Epidemiol. 1993;137:749–757.
    1. Bourne RR, Dineen BP, Ali SM, et al. Prevalence of refractive error in Bangladeshi adults: results of the National Blindness and low vision survey of Bangladesh. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1150–1160. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.09.046.
    1. Wong TY, Loon SC, Saw SM. The epidemiology of age related eye diseases in Asia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:506–511. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2005.083733.
    1. Vitale S, Schein OD, Meinert CL, et al. The refractive status and vision profile: a questionnaire to measure vision-related quality of life in persons with refractive error. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1529–1539. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00171-8.
    1. Rose K, Harper R, Tromans C, et al. Quality of life in myopia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:1031–1034. doi: 10.1136/bjo.84.9.1031.
    1. Chia C, Chua W-H, Cheung Y-B, et al. Atropine for the treatment of childhood myopia: safety and efficacy of 0.5%, 0.1% and 0.01% doses (atropine for the treatment of myopia 2) Ophthalmology. 2012;119:347–354. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.07.031.
    1. Siatkowski RM, Cotter SA, Crockett RS, et al. Two-year multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel safety and efficacy study of 2% pirenzepine ophthalmic gel in children with myopia. J AAPOS. 2008;12:332–339. doi: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2007.10.014.
    1. Tan DT, Lam DS, Chua WH, et al. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.06.038.
    1. Siatkowski RM, Cotter S, Miller JM, et al. Safety and efficacy of 2% pirenzepine ophthalmic gel in children with myopia: a 1-year, multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled parallel study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:1667–1674. doi: 10.1001/archopht.122.11.1667.
    1. Fulk GW, Cyert LA, Parker DE. A randomized trial of the effect of single-vision vs. bifocal lenses on myopia progression in children with esophoria. Optom Vis Sci. 2000;77:395–401. doi: 10.1097/00006324-200008000-00006.
    1. Cheng D, Schmid KL, Woo GC, et al. Randomized trial effect of bifocal and prismatic bifocal spectacles on myopia progression. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128:12–19. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.332.
    1. Leung JT, Brown B. Progression of myopia in Hong Kong Chinese schoolchildren is slowed by wearing progressive lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:346–354. doi: 10.1097/00006324-199906000-00013.
    1. Yang Z, Lan W, Ge J, et al. The effectiveness of progressive addition lenses on the progression of myopia in Chinese children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2009;29:41–48. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00608.x.
    1. Sankaridurg P, Donovan L, Varnas S, et al. Spectacle lenses designed to reduce progression of myopia: 12-month results. Optom Vis Sci. 2010;87:631–641. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181ea19c7.
    1. Aller TA, Wildsoet C. Bifocal soft contact lenses as a possible myopia control treatment: a case report involving identical twins. Clin Exp Optom. 2008;91:394–399. doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2007.00230.x.
    1. Stone J. The possible influence of contact lenses on myopia. Br J Physiol Opt. 1976;31:89–114.
    1. 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;66:41–47. doi: 10.1097/00006324-198901000-00013.
    1. Perrigin J, Perrigin D, Quintero S, et al. Silicone acrylate contact lenses for myopia control: 3-year results. Optom Vis Sci. 1990;67:764–769. doi: 10.1097/00006324-199010000-00003.
    1. Katz J, Schein OD, Levy B, et al. A randomized trial of rigid gas permeable contact lenses to reduce progression of children’s myopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:82–90. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9394(03)00106-5.
    1. Walline JJ, Jones LA, Mutti DO, et al. A randomized trial of the effects of rigid contact lenses on myopia progression. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:1760–1766. doi: 10.1001/archopht.122.12.1760.
    1. Cooper J, Schulman E, Jamal N. Current status on the development and treatment of myopia. Optometry. 2012;83:179–199.
    1. Gwiazda J. Treatment options for myopia. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86:624–628. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181a6a225.
    1. Swarbrick HA. Orthokeratology review and update. Clin Exp Optom. 2006;89:124–143. doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2006.00044.x.
    1. Nichols JJ, Marsich MM, Nguyen M, et al. Overnight orthokeratology. Optom Vis Sci. 2000;77:252–259. doi: 10.1097/00006324-200005000-00012.
    1. Caroline PJ. Contemporary orthokeratology. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2001;24:41–46. doi: 10.1016/S1367-0484(01)80008-4.
    1. Cheung SW, Cho P, Chui WS, et al. Refractive error and visual acuity changes in orthokeratology patients. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84:410–416. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31804f5acc.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1080/02713680590907256.
    1. Walline JJ, Jones LA, Sinnott LT. Corneal reshaping and myopia progression. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93:1181–1185. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2008.151365.
    1. Kakita T, Hiraoka T, Oshika T. Influence of overnight orthokeratology on axial elongation in childhood myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:2170–2174. doi: 10.1167/iovs.10-5485.
    1. Cho P, Cheung SW. Retardation of myopia in Orthokeratology (ROMIO) study: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:7077–7085. doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-10565.
    1. Hiraoka T, Kakita T, Okamoto F, et al. Long-term effect of overnight orthokeratology on axial length elongation in childhood myopia: a 5-year follow-up study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:3913–3919. doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-8453.
    1. Mok AK-H, Chung CS-T. Seven-year retrospective analysis of the myopic control effect of orthokeratology in children: a pilot study. Clin Optom. 2011;3:1–4.
    1. Downie LE, Lowe R. Corneal reshaping influences myopic prescription stability (CRIMPS): an analysis of the effect of orthokeratology on childhood myopic refractive stability. Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice. 2013;39:303–310. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e318298ee76.
    1. Taiwan Macro Vision Corp . Professional fitting guide of orthokeratology. 2013. pp. pp7–p14.
    1. Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: an application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci. 1997;74:367–375. doi: 10.1097/00006324-199706000-00019.
    1. Miller JM. Clinical applications of power vectors. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86:599–602. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181a6a211.
    1. Fan Q, Teo YY, Saw SM. Application of advanced statistics in ophthalmology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:6059–6065. doi: 10.1167/iovs.10-7108.
    1. Donovan L, Sankaridurg P, Ho A, Naduvilath T, et al. Myopia progression rates in urban children wearing single-vision spectacles. Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89:27–32. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3182357f79.
    1. Manny RE, Hussein M, Scheiman M, et al. Tropicamide (1%): an effective cycloplegic agent for myopic children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:1728–1735.
    1. Marsh-Tootle WL, Dong LM, Hyman L, et al. Myopia Progression in Children Wearing Spectacles vs. Switching to Contact Lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2009; Epub ahead of print.
    1. Chen C, Cheung SW, Cho P, et al. Myopia control using toric orthokeratology (TO-SEE study) Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:6510–6517. doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-12527.
    1. Paune J, Cardona G, Quevedo L, et al. Toric double tear reservoir contact lens in orthokeratology for astigmatism. Eye Contact Lens. 2012;38:245–251. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e318258789e.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner