Contact Lens Methods for Clinical Myopia Control

ResearchSpace/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Turnbull, Philip en
dc.contributor.author Munro, OJ en
dc.contributor.author Phillips, John en
dc.date.accessioned 2016-10-28T02:31:02Z en
dc.date.issued 2016-09 en
dc.identifier.citation Optometry and Vision Science, 2016, 93 (9), 1120 - 1126 en
dc.identifier.issn 1040-5488 en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2292/30881 en
dc.description.abstract Purpose: A number of optical methods for slowing myopia progression have been tested and are now available. However, data on real-world use in clinical use is scarce. Here, we present a review of the clinical outcomes for patients attending a specialist myopia control clinic at The University of Auckland Optometry School, NZ. Case Series: We report a comparative case series of 110 patients (aged 4–33 years, mean: 12.13 ± 4.58 years, 62% female) who attended the clinic between 2010 and 2014. Fifty-six were prescribed orthokeratology, 32 dual focus soft contact lenses, and 22 received advice only. Initial myopia, vitreous and axial eye length, previous myopia progression, age, number of myopic parents, and gender were not significantly different between orthokeratology and dual focus soft contact lens groups. Mean follow-up time for the orthokeratology and dual focus lens groups was the same (orthokeratology: 1.30 ± 0.88 years; dual focus lens: 1.33 ± 0.80 years (p = 0.989)). There was a significant reduction in the annualized myopia progression in both groups (orthokeratology: −1.17 ± 0.55 to −0.09 ± 017 D/yr, p < 0.001; dual focus soft contact lens: −1.15 ± 0.46 to −0.10 ± 0.23 D/yr, p < 0.001). There was no difference between orthokeratology and dual focus lens treatment efficacy (p = 0.763), nor in axial or vitreous chamber length changes after treatment (p = 0.184). One adverse event was reported over the 4-year period. Conclusions: Both orthokeratology and dual focus soft contact lenses are effective strategies for targeting myopia progression in the clinic. We saw no significant difference in the efficacy of the two methods in this regard, and so we believe there are very few barriers for any contact lens practitioner to be actively promoting myopia control treatment to at-risk patients. en
dc.description.uri https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27564516 en
dc.language English en
dc.publisher Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins en
dc.relation.ispartofseries Optometry and Vision Science 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. Details obtained from http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/1040-5488/ http://edmgr.ovid.com/ovs/accounts/ifauth.htm en
dc.rights.uri https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm en
dc.title Contact Lens Methods for Clinical Myopia Control en
dc.type Journal Article en
dc.identifier.doi 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000957 en
pubs.issue 9 en
pubs.begin-page 1120 en
pubs.volume 93 en
dc.description.version VoR - Version of Record en
dc.identifier.pmid 27564516 en
pubs.author-url http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/toc/2016/09000 en
pubs.end-page 1126 en
pubs.publication-status Published en
dc.rights.accessrights http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/RestrictedAccess en
pubs.subtype Article en
pubs.elements-id 541515 en
pubs.org-id Faculty of Medical & Hlth Sci en
pubs.org-id Optometry & Vision Science en
dc.identifier.eissn 1538-9235 en
pubs.record-created-at-source-date 2016-10-28 en
pubs.dimensions-id 27564516 en


Full text options

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Share

Search ResearchSpace


Advanced Search

Browse