PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the one-year efficacy of myopia prevention and control using three optical intervention methods - single vision lens (SVL), high aspherical lenticule (HAL), and orthokeratology (OK) lens - in children with low myopia.
METHODS: A cohort of 150 children aged 7-13 years with low myopia was recruited and divided into three groups: SVL (n = 50), HAL (n = 50), and OK lens group (n = 50), based on their preference for glasses. Follow-up assessments were carried out over one year, focusing on data from the right eye for statistical analysis. Baseline characteristics such as gender, age, axial length (AL), spherical equivalent refractive error (SER), flat keratometry (K1), steep keratometry (K2), anterior chamber depth (ACD), white-to-white corneal diameter (WTW), and non-contact tonometry (NCT) measurements were gathered and compared among the three groups before any intervention. Changes in AL growth after 1 year of intervention were assessed across the three groups. Subsequently, the AL growth control rates between the HAL and OK lens groups were compared, with the SVL group serving as the reference standard.
RESULTS: The study found no statistically significant variances in baseline characteristics (gender, age, SER, AL, K1, K2, WTW, and NCT) among the SVL, HAL, and OK lens groups (all p > 0.05). Following a one-year intervention, AL growth rates were as follows: HAL group (0.163 ± 0.113 mm) < OK lens group (0.280 ± 0.170 mm) < SVL group (0.516 ± 0.190 mm), with statistically significant disparities (p < 0.05). The HAL group demonstrated a higher 1-year AL growth control rate (68.41%) compared to the OK lens group (45.74%) for children aged 7-13 with low myopia, with a statistically significant differences (p < 0.001). And there was significant difference in the SER change between SVL group and HAL group (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to SVL, HAL and OK lens are more effective in controlling axial growth in mild myopia. Specifically, HAL maybe shows superior outcomes in both preventive and corrective measures, also it needs to be supported by more studies from randomized controlled experiments.
METHODS: A cohort of 150 children aged 7-13 years with low myopia was recruited and divided into three groups: SVL (n = 50), HAL (n = 50), and OK lens group (n = 50), based on their preference for glasses. Follow-up assessments were carried out over one year, focusing on data from the right eye for statistical analysis. Baseline characteristics such as gender, age, axial length (AL), spherical equivalent refractive error (SER), flat keratometry (K1), steep keratometry (K2), anterior chamber depth (ACD), white-to-white corneal diameter (WTW), and non-contact tonometry (NCT) measurements were gathered and compared among the three groups before any intervention. Changes in AL growth after 1 year of intervention were assessed across the three groups. Subsequently, the AL growth control rates between the HAL and OK lens groups were compared, with the SVL group serving as the reference standard.
RESULTS: The study found no statistically significant variances in baseline characteristics (gender, age, SER, AL, K1, K2, WTW, and NCT) among the SVL, HAL, and OK lens groups (all p > 0.05). Following a one-year intervention, AL growth rates were as follows: HAL group (0.163 ± 0.113 mm) < OK lens group (0.280 ± 0.170 mm) < SVL group (0.516 ± 0.190 mm), with statistically significant disparities (p < 0.05). The HAL group demonstrated a higher 1-year AL growth control rate (68.41%) compared to the OK lens group (45.74%) for children aged 7-13 with low myopia, with a statistically significant differences (p < 0.001). And there was significant difference in the SER change between SVL group and HAL group (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to SVL, HAL and OK lens are more effective in controlling axial growth in mild myopia. Specifically, HAL maybe shows superior outcomes in both preventive and corrective measures, also it needs to be supported by more studies from randomized controlled experiments.
摘要：
目的：本研究旨在比较使用三种光学干预方法-单视觉透镜（SVL）预防和控制近视的一年疗效。高非球面透镜（HAL），和角膜塑形术（OK）镜片-在儿童低近视。
方法：招募了150名年龄在7-13岁的低度近视儿童，分为三组：SVL（n=50），HAL(n=50),和OK镜头组（n=50），根据他们对眼镜的偏好。进行了一年多的后续评估，关注右眼数据进行统计分析。基线特征，如性别，年龄,轴向长度（AL），等效球面屈光误差(SER),平面角膜曲率测量（K1），陡峭角膜曲率术（K2），前房深度（ACD），白色至白色角膜直径（WTW），在任何干预前收集并比较三组之间的非接触式眼压测量（NCT）测量值。评估三组干预1年后AL生长的变化。随后，比较HAL和OK透镜组之间的AL生长控制率，以SVL组作为参考标准。
结果：研究发现基线特征（性别，年龄,SER,AL,K1、K2、WTW、和NCT)在SVL中，哈尔,和OK透镜组(均p>0.05)。经过一年的干预，AL生长速率如下:HAL组(0.163±0.113mm)结论：与SVL相比，HAL和OK透镜在控制轻度近视的轴向生长方面更有效。具体来说,HAL可能在预防和纠正措施方面表现出优异的效果，它还需要更多的随机对照实验研究的支持。
方法：招募了150名年龄在7-13岁的低度近视儿童，分为三组：SVL（n=50），HAL(n=50),和OK镜头组（n=50），根据他们对眼镜的偏好。进行了一年多的后续评估，关注右眼数据进行统计分析。基线特征，如性别，年龄,轴向长度（AL），等效球面屈光误差(SER),平面角膜曲率测量（K1），陡峭角膜曲率术（K2），前房深度（ACD），白色至白色角膜直径（WTW），在任何干预前收集并比较三组之间的非接触式眼压测量（NCT）测量值。评估三组干预1年后AL生长的变化。随后，比较HAL和OK透镜组之间的AL生长控制率，以SVL组作为参考标准。
结果：研究发现基线特征（性别，年龄,SER,AL,K1、K2、WTW、和NCT)在SVL中，哈尔,和OK透镜组(均p>0.05)。经过一年的干预，AL生长速率如下:HAL组(0.163±0.113mm)
