■确定三种不同品牌的角膜塑形镜(OK)镜片在近视控制效率和角膜重塑方面的差异(Lucid,欧几里德,和阿尔法)。
■我们回顾了开始同时使用不同品牌OK镜片的受试者。对于每个参与者,在接下来的19个月中,每6个月,轴向长度(AL)的变化,治疗区的水平和垂直最大距离(HMDTZ和VMDTZ),高凸区的宽度(WHCZ),偏心的距离,并测量了偏心矢量的水平和垂直分量。上述数据的平均值,偏心矢量(ADV)的平均值,并计算了代数计算的偏心平均值(ADA)。
■所有三对(Lucid(n=46)与欧几里德(n=46):组Lucid-vs.欧几里德-Lucid(LE-L)和LE-E,Lucid(n=50)vs.α(n=50):LA-L和LA-A组),和欧几里德(n=17)vs.α(n=17):EA-E和EA-A组)显示出良好的可比性。关于AL在19个月内的变化,没有一对显示显着差异(LE-L:0.27±0.24mm,LE-E:0.31±0.24mm(p=0.68);LA-L:0.36±0.26mm,LA-A:0.36±0.27mm(p=0.85);EA-E:0.34±0.27mm,EA-A:0.41±0.28mm(p=0.63))。关于治疗区,Lucid显示最大的HMDTZ和VMDTZ(均p<0.05)。关于WHCZ,没有一对显示出显著差异。对于ADV和ADA,Lucid的ADV和ADA高于Euclid(ADV:LE-L:0.73±0.44mm,LE-E:0.55±0.45mm,p<0.05;ADA:LE-L:0.80±0.41mm,LE-E:0.63±0.44mm,p<0.05),其余对无显著差异。对于113只眼睛的整体队列,AL的变化与ADV和ADA均弱相关(均p<0.05)。关于ADV/ADA,所有配对都没有显着差异,表示相等的镜头位置稳定性。
■确定后,三个品牌的不同对之间的AL增长没有显着差异,WHCZ,或镜头位置稳定性,尽管Lucid的治疗区比Euclid和Alpha大,Lucid比Euclid更分散.较大的晶状体偏心与较少的AL生长弱相关。
UNASSIGNED: To determine the differences in myopia control efficiency and corneal reshaping between three different brands of orthokeratology (OK) lenses (Lucid, Euclid, and Alpha).
UNASSIGNED: We retrospectively reviewed subjects who started simultaneously using different brands of OK lenses. For each participant, every 6 months in the 19 months of following, the changes in axial length (AL), horizontal and vertical maximum distances of the treatment zone (HMDTZ and VMDTZ), width of the high convex zone (WHCZ), distance of
decentration, and horizontal and vertical components of the
decentration vector were measured. The average values of the above data, the average value of the
decentration vector (ADV), and the average value of
decentration calculated algebraically (ADA) were calculated.
UNASSIGNED: All the three pairs (Lucid (n = 46) vs. Euclid (n = 46): groups Lucid-versus-Euclid-Lucid (LE-L) and LE-E), Lucid (n = 50) vs. Alpha (n = 50): groups LA-L and LA-A), and Euclid (n = 17) vs. Alpha (n = 17): groups EA-E and EA-A) showed good comparability. Regarding the change in AL during 19 months, none of the pairs showed significant differences (LE-L:0.27 ± 0.24 mm, LE-E:0.31 ± 0.24 mm (p = 0.68); LA-L:0.36 ± 0.26 mm, LA-A:0.36 ± 0.27 mm (p = 0.85); EA-E:0.34 ± 0.27 mm, EA-A:0.41 ± 0.28 mm (p = 0.63)). Regarding treatment zone, Lucid showed the largest HMDTZ and VMDTZ (both p < 0.05). Regarding the WHCZ, none of the pairs showed significant differences. For the ADV and ADA, Lucid had more ADV and ADA than Euclid (ADV: LE-L:0.73 ± 0.44 mm, LE-E:0.55 ± 0.45 mm, p < 0.05; ADA: LE-L:0.80 ± 0.41 mm, LE-E:0.63 ± 0.44 mm, p < 0.05), and the remaining pairs showed no significant difference. For the overall cohort with 113 eyes, the change in AL was weakly correlated with both ADV and ADA (both p < 0.05). Regarding the ADV/ADA, all pairs showed no significant differences, indicating equal lens position stability.
UNASSIGNED: After OK, there were no significant differences between the different pairs of the three brands in AL growth, WHCZ, or lens position stability, although Lucid had a larger treatment zone than Euclid and Alpha, and Lucid had more decentration than Euclid. A larger lens
decentration were weakly related to less AL growth.