BACKGROUND: To evaluate short-term (3 months) and long-term (3 years) accommodative changes produced by overnight orthokeratology (OK). METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal study on young adult subjects with low to moderate myopia was carried out. A total of 93 patients took part in the study. Out of these, 72 were enrolled into the short-term follow-up: 21 were on a control group, 26 on a Paragon CRT contact lenses group, and 25 on a Seefree contact lenses group. The other 21 patients were old CRT wearers on long-term follow-up. Accommodative function was assessed by means of negative and positive relative accommodation (NRA / PRA), monocular accommodative amplitude (MAA), accommodative lag, and monocular accommodative facility (MAF). These values were compared among the three short-term groups at the follow-up visit. The long- and short-term follow-up data was compared among the CRT groups. RESULTS: Subjective accommodative results did not suffer any statistically significant changes in any of the accommodative tests for any of the short-term groups when compared to baseline. There were no statistically significant differences between the three short-term groups at the follow-up visit. When comparing the short- and long-term groups, only the NRA showed a significant difference (p = 0.0006) among all the accommodation tests. CONCLUSIONS: OK does not induce changes in the ocular accommodative function for either short-term or long-term periods.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate short-term (3 months) and long-term (3 years) accommodative changes produced by overnight orthokeratology (OK). METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal study on young adult subjects with low to moderate myopia was carried out. A total of 93 patients took part in the study. Out of these, 72 were enrolled into the short-term follow-up: 21 were on a control group, 26 on a Paragon CRT contact lenses group, and 25 on a Seefree contact lenses group. The other 21 patients were old CRT wearers on long-term follow-up. Accommodative function was assessed by means of negative and positive relative accommodation (NRA / PRA), monocular accommodative amplitude (MAA), accommodative lag, and monocular accommodative facility (MAF). These values were compared among the three short-term groups at the follow-up visit. The long- and short-term follow-up data was compared among the CRT groups. RESULTS: Subjective accommodative results did not suffer any statistically significant changes in any of the accommodative tests for any of the short-term groups when compared to baseline. There were no statistically significant differences between the three short-term groups at the follow-up visit. When comparing the short- and long-term groups, only the NRA showed a significant difference (p = 0.0006) among all the accommodation tests. CONCLUSIONS: OK does not induce changes in the ocular accommodative function for either short-term or long-term periods.