Retrospective case-series of a myopia control clinic

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Turnbull, Philip en
dc.contributor.author Phillips, John en
dc.coverage.spatial New Orleans, LA en
dc.date.accessioned 2015-11-18T01:01:19Z en
dc.date.issued 2015-10-09 en
dc.identifier.citation American Academy of Optometry: Academy 2015 New Orleans. New Orleans, USA. 09 Oct 2015 en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2292/27500 en
dc.description.abstract Background: The prevalence of myopia continues to grow, and there are now a number of optical treatment options available to clinicians. However real world clinical data on their effectiveness is sparse. To promote anti-myopia treatments, a specialist Myopia Control Clinic (MCC) opened as a referral clinic at The University of Auckland, New Zealand in 2010, and this is the first comprehensive audit of the clinical outcomes. Case Series: We present a retrospective case series of 110 patients (aged 4 – 33 years, mean: 12.13 ± 4.58 years, 57% female) who attended the MCC between 2010 and 2014. Of these, 56 underwent orthokeratology (OK), 32 wore dual focus soft contact lenses (DFCL), and 22 received advice only. Baseline myopia, vitreous and axial eye length, previous myopia progression, age, number of myopic parents, and gender were not different between OK and DFCL groups at baseline. However, the advice group were older (p = 0.037) and had less previous myopic progression (p = 0.001). Mean follow-up time was 1.30 ± 0.88 and 1.33 ± 0.80 years in OK and SCL groups respectively (p = 0.989). There was a significant reduction in the annualised myopia progression in both treatment groups (OK: -1.17 ± 0.55 to -0.09 ± 017D/yr, p < 0.001, DFCL: -1.15 ± 0.46 to -0.10 ± 0.23D/yr, p < 0.001). There was no difference between OK and DFCL treatment efficacy (p = 0.763), nor in axial or vitreous chamber length changes following treatment (p = 0.184). Only one adverse event was reported over the 4 year period. Conclusions: Contact lenses, whether OK or DFCL, are an effective strategy for targeting myopia progression in children. As there was no difference in the efficacy of the two methods, there are very few barriers in terms of upskilling, chair time, or capital expenditure, for any practitioner to be actively promoting myopia control treatments to at risk groups. en
dc.relation.ispartof Academy 2015 New Orleans en
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. en
dc.rights.uri https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm en
dc.title Retrospective case-series of a myopia control clinic en
dc.type Conference Item en
pubs.finish-date 2015-10-10 en
pubs.start-date 2015-10-07 en
dc.rights.accessrights http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/OpenAccess en
pubs.subtype Abstract en
pubs.elements-id 503354 en
pubs.org-id Medical and Health Sciences en
pubs.org-id Optometry and Vision Science en
pubs.record-created-at-source-date 2015-11-09 en


Files in this item

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Share

Search ResearchSpace


Browse

Statistics