Abstract
Objective
To report the study design and one month’s preliminary results of a randomized, single-masked,
one-year prospective study of orthokeratology (ortho-k) in adults wearing lenses of
different compression factors.
Methods
Adults aged 18–38 years, with myopia of −0.75 to −5.00 D and astigmatism < 1.50 D,
were recruited and randomly assigned into two groups: a conventional compression factor
or Jessen Factor (CCF) group (compression factor = 0.75 D) and an increased (extra
1.00D) compression factor (ICF) group. Clinical outcomes, including spherical equivalent
refraction (SER) reduction, visual acuity, corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor
(CRF), and signs and symptoms were collected at the one-month follow-up visit. Indicators
of the level of satisfaction and quality of life after commencing treatment were determined
via a satisfaction questionnaire and the NEI-RQL-42 questionnaire.
Results
Baseline data from 26 CCF and 24 ICF participants were analysed and no significant
differences were observed between the two groups (p > 0.05). The first fit success rates were 90 % for CCF group and 83 % for the ICF
group, SER reductions were 97 % and 95 % for the CCF and ICF group, respectively,
with uncorrected high-contrast visual acuity of -0.06 (-0.18 to 0.42) and 0.00 (-0.16
to 0.52), respectively (p > 0.05) at the 1-month visit. Overall, the incidence of corneal staining was 77 %
in the CCF and 79 % in ICF group; central corneal staining was 15 % and 33 %, respectively.
However, the differences of corneal staining between the groups did not reach significance
in any visit (p > 0.05). The main complaint from participants was glare (both groups). No significant
differences in CRF and CH were found in the first month (p > 0.05). Both groups recorded high scores in the level of satisfaction questionnaire,
with no significant differences between groups (p > 0.05). Compared with baseline scores, 1-month NEI-RQL-42 subscales of dependence
on correction, appearance, and satisfaction with correction significantly increased,
and the glare score significantly decreased in both groups (all p < 0.05).
Conclusions
The majority of participants were satisfied with the treatment and no serious corneal
adverse effects were observed. These results demonstrate that ortho-k lenses of default
and increased compression factor (1D) demonstrated similar clinical performance and
ortho-k can be a safe and well-accepted option for myopia correction in adults, but
long-term observation is warranted.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Contact Lens and Anterior EyeAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- The myopia boom.Nature. 2015; 519: 276-278https://doi.org/10.1038/519276a
- The epidemiology of age related eye diseases in Asia.Br J Ophthalmol. 2006; 90: 506-511https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2005.083733
- Epidemiology of myopia.Asia Pac J Ophthalmol. 2016; 5: 386-393https://doi.org/10.1097/apo.0000000000000236
- Visual quality differences between orthokeratology and LASIK to compensate low-moderate myopia.Cornea. 2013; 32: 1137-1141https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e31828d6d4d
- Overnight corneal reshaping versus Soft Disposable contact lenses: vision-related quality-of-Life differences from a randomized clinical trial.Optom Vis Sci. 2005; 82: 886-891https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000180818.40127.dc
- Changes in higher order wavefront aberrations after contact lens corneal refractive therapy and LASIK surgery.J Refract Surg. 2010; 26: 348-355https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597x-20100218-03
- Near binocular visual function in young adult orthokeratology versus soft contact lens wearers.Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2017; 40: 184-189https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2017.01.003
- Practice of orthokeratology by a group of contact lens practitioners in Hong Kong--Part 1. General overview.Clin Exp Optom. 2002; 85: 365-371https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2002.tb02387.x
- Orthokeratology (corneal refractive therapy): what is it and how does it work?.Eye Contact Lens. 2004; 30 (discussion 205-6): 181-185https://doi.org/10.1097/01.icl.0000140221.41806.6e
- - Design variables and fitting philosophies of reverse geometry lenses.(Chapter 4)in: Mountford J. Ruston D. Dave T. Orthokeratology: principles and practice. Butterworth-Heinemann, London2004: 69-107
- Retention and regression of orthokeratology with time.Int Contact Lens Clin. 1998; 25: 0-64https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-8967(98)00020-0
- The validity of the Jessen formula in overnight orthokeratology: a retrospective study.Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2008; 28: 265-268https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00545.x
- Weekly changes in axial length and choroidal thickness in children during and following orthokeratology treatment with different compression factors.Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2019; 8: 1-14https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.8.4.9
- The influence of orthokeratology compression factor on ocular higher-order aberrations.Clin Exp Optom. 2020; 103: 123-128https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12933
- Refractive and corneal responses of young myopic children to short-term orthokeratology treatment with different compression factors.Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2020; 43: 65-72https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2019.10.134
- A relationship between tolerance of blur and personality.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51: 6077-6082https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.09-5013
- Grading scales for contact lens complications.Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1998; 18: 182-186https://doi.org/10.1016/s0275-5408(97)00066-5
- The usefulness of waveform score from the ocular response analyzer.Optom Vis Sci. 2010; 87: 195-199https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181d1d940
- Reliability and validity of refractive error-specific quality-of-life instruments.Arch Ophthalmol. 2003; 121: 1289-1296https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.121.9.1289
- Clinical performance of an orthokeratology lens fitted with the aid of a computer software in Chinese children.Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2012; 35: 180-184https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2012.01.004
- Combined atropine with orthokeratology for myopia control: study design and preliminary results.Curr Eye Res. 2019; 44: 671-678https://doi.org/10.1080/02713683.2019.1568501
- Toric orthokeratology for highly astigmatic children.Optom Vis Sci. 2012; 89: 849-855https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e318257c20f
- Orthokeratology practice in children in a university clinic in Hong Kong.Clin Exp Optom. 2008; 91: 453-460https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00259.x
- Overnight orthokeratology: preliminary results of the Lenses and Overnight Orthokeratology (LOOK) study.Optom Vis Sci. 2002; 79: 598-605https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200209000-00011
- Choroidal thickness and peripheral myopic defocus during orthokeratology.Optom Vis Sci. 2015; 92: 579-588https://doi.org/10.1097/opx.0000000000000573
- The effect of age on short-term orthokeratology.Optom Vis Sci. 2005; 82: 505-511https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000168583.17327.6d
- Corneal biomechanics: a review.Clin Exp Optom. 2015; 98: 107-116https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12230
- A study on the effect of the corneal biomechanical properties undergoing overnight orthokeratology.Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 2010; 46: 209-213https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0412-4081.2010.03.004
- High myopia-partial reduction orthokeratology (HM-PRO): study design.Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2013; 36: 164-170https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2013.02.012
- The children’s overnight orthokeratology investigation (COOKI) pilot study.Optom Vis Sci. 2004; 81: 407-413https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000135093.77007.18
- The safety of orthokeratology--A systematic review.Eye Contact Lens. 2016; 42: 35-42https://doi.org/10.1097/icl.0000000000000219
- Comparison of reverse-geometry lens designs for overnight orthokeratology.Optom Vis Sci. 2003; 80: 796-804https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200312000-00009
- Quality of life of myopic subjects with different methods of visual correction using the NEI RQL-42 questionnaire.Eye Contact Lens. 2012; 38: 116-121https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0b013e3182480e97
- The effect of overnight contact lens corneal reshaping on refractive error-specific quality of life.Optom Vis Sci. 2006; 83: 354-359https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000221401.33776.54
Article info
Publication history
Published online: May 03, 2020
Accepted:
March 25,
2020
Received in revised form:
March 25,
2020
Received:
December 13,
2019
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
