Eye & contact lens · 2025
Short-Term Effects of Various Contact Lenses on Accommodative Function in Myopic Children.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen Yunyun, Ding Chenglu, Li Xue, Huang Yingying, Drobe Björn, Chen Hao, Bao Jinhua
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the short-term impact of different types of contact lenses on accommodation in the same group of myopic children compared with single-vision spectacle lenses.
METHODS: Thirty myopic children aged 10.2 ± 1.5 years were enrolled. Each participant was corrected with four different modalities in following sequence: single-vision spectacles (SVSP), single-vision soft contact lens (SVSCL), a high-addition multifocal soft contact lens (MFSCL), and orthokeratology lenses (OKL). Measurements included the dynamic accommodative stimulus-response curve (ASRC), distance accommodative facility (DAF), negative relative accommodation (NRA), and positive relative accommodation (PRA). Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction was performed.
RESULTS: The accommodative parameters differed among the four modalities except for the slope of ASRC ( F = 1.700, P = 0.173). Single-vision spectacle lens exhibited the highest accommodative lag area (10.08 ± 1.65 D 2 ) and the lowest objective accommodative amplitude (7.72 ± 0.93 D) and PRA (-2.51 ± 0.62 D) (all P < 0.05). Multifocal soft contact lens, OKL, and SVSCL showed no significant differences in accommodative lag area (8.93 ± 1.78, 7.98 ± 2.33, 8.44 ± 2.20 D 2 ), NRA (2.23 ± 0.33, 2.23 ± 0.38, 2.39 ± 0.33 D), PRA (-3.05 ± 0.78, -3.43 ± 1.05, 3.00 ± 1.02 D), or DAF (23.8 ± 6.99, 26.0 ± 8.23, 23.3 ± 7.07 D); however, OKL (8.68 ± 1.08 D) induced greater objective accommodative amplitude than SVSCL (8.26 ± 0.97 D) ( P = 0.010).
CONCLUSIONS: Single-vision spectacles exhibited worse accommodative function than the other three modalities. However, no significant changes in accommodation were detected when using OKL or high-addition MFSCL compared with SVSCL, except higher objective accommodative amplitude with OKL than SVSCL.
METHODS: Thirty myopic children aged 10.2 ± 1.5 years were enrolled. Each participant was corrected with four different modalities in following sequence: single-vision spectacles (SVSP), single-vision soft contact lens (SVSCL), a high-addition multifocal soft contact lens (MFSCL), and orthokeratology lenses (OKL). Measurements included the dynamic accommodative stimulus-response curve (ASRC), distance accommodative facility (DAF), negative relative accommodation (NRA), and positive relative accommodation (PRA). Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction was performed.
RESULTS: The accommodative parameters differed among the four modalities except for the slope of ASRC ( F = 1.700, P = 0.173). Single-vision spectacle lens exhibited the highest accommodative lag area (10.08 ± 1.65 D 2 ) and the lowest objective accommodative amplitude (7.72 ± 0.93 D) and PRA (-2.51 ± 0.62 D) (all P < 0.05). Multifocal soft contact lens, OKL, and SVSCL showed no significant differences in accommodative lag area (8.93 ± 1.78, 7.98 ± 2.33, 8.44 ± 2.20 D 2 ), NRA (2.23 ± 0.33, 2.23 ± 0.38, 2.39 ± 0.33 D), PRA (-3.05 ± 0.78, -3.43 ± 1.05, 3.00 ± 1.02 D), or DAF (23.8 ± 6.99, 26.0 ± 8.23, 23.3 ± 7.07 D); however, OKL (8.68 ± 1.08 D) induced greater objective accommodative amplitude than SVSCL (8.26 ± 0.97 D) ( P = 0.010).
CONCLUSIONS: Single-vision spectacles exhibited worse accommodative function than the other three modalities. However, no significant changes in accommodation were detected when using OKL or high-addition MFSCL compared with SVSCL, except higher objective accommodative amplitude with OKL than SVSCL.