PURPOSE: To determine whether lens induced myopia in chicks can be reversed or reduced by wearing myopia progression control lenses of the same nominal (central) power but different peripheral designs. METHODS: Newly hatched chicks wore -10D Conventional lenses unilaterally for 7 days. The myopic chicks were then randomly divided into three groups: one fitted with Type 1 myopia progression control lenses, the second with Type 2 myopia progression control lenses and the third continued to wear Conventional lenses for seven more days. All lenses had -10D central power, but Type 1 and Type 2 lenses had differing peripheral designs; +2.75D and +1.32D power rise at pupil edge, respectively. Axial length and refractive error were measured on Days 0, 7 and 14. Analyses were performed on the mean differences between treated and untreated eyes. RESULTS: Refractive error and axial length differences between treated and untreated eyes were insignificant on Day 0. On Day 7 treated eyes were longer (T1; 0.44 ± 0.07 mm, T2; 0.27 ± 0.06 mm, C; 0.40 ± 0.06 mm) and more myopic (T1; -9.61 ± 0.52D, T2; -9.57 ± 0.61D, C; -9.50 ± 0.58D) than untreated eyes with no significant differences between treatment groups. On Day 14 myopia was reversed (+2.91 ± 1.08D), reduced (-3.83 ± 0.94D) or insignificantly increased (-11.89 ± 0.79D) in treated eyes of Type 1, Type 2 and Conventional treated chicks respectively. Relative changes in axial lengths (T1; -0.13 ± 0.09 mm, T2; 0.36 ± 0.09 mm, C; 0.56 ± 0.05 mm) were consistent with changes in refraction. Refractive error differences were significant for all group comparisons (p < 0.001). Type 1 length differences were significantly different from Conventional and Type 2 groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Myopia progression control lens designs can reverse lens-induced myopia in chicks. The effect is primarily due to axial length changes. Different lens designs produce different effects indicating that lens design is important in modifying refractive error.
PURPOSE: To determine whether lens induced myopia in chicks can be reversed or reduced by wearing myopia progression control lenses of the same nominal (central) power but different peripheral designs. METHODS: Newly hatched chicks wore -10D Conventional lenses unilaterally for 7 days. The myopic chicks were then randomly divided into three groups: one fitted with Type 1 myopia progression control lenses, the second with Type 2 myopia progression control lenses and the third continued to wear Conventional lenses for seven more days. All lenses had -10D central power, but Type 1 and Type 2 lenses had differing peripheral designs; +2.75D and +1.32D power rise at pupil edge, respectively. Axial length and refractive error were measured on Days 0, 7 and 14. Analyses were performed on the mean differences between treated and untreated eyes. RESULTS:Refractive error and axial length differences between treated and untreated eyes were insignificant on Day 0. On Day 7 treated eyes were longer (T1; 0.44 ± 0.07 mm, T2; 0.27 ± 0.06 mm, C; 0.40 ± 0.06 mm) and more myopic (T1; -9.61 ± 0.52D, T2; -9.57 ± 0.61D, C; -9.50 ± 0.58D) than untreated eyes with no significant differences between treatment groups. On Day 14 myopia was reversed (+2.91 ± 1.08D), reduced (-3.83 ± 0.94D) or insignificantly increased (-11.89 ± 0.79D) in treated eyes of Type 1, Type 2 and Conventional treated chicks respectively. Relative changes in axial lengths (T1; -0.13 ± 0.09 mm, T2; 0.36 ± 0.09 mm, C; 0.56 ± 0.05 mm) were consistent with changes in refraction. Refractive error differences were significant for all group comparisons (p < 0.001). Type 1 length differences were significantly different from Conventional and Type 2 groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Myopia progression control lens designs can reverse lens-induced myopia in chicks. The effect is primarily due to axial length changes. Different lens designs produce different effects indicating that lens design is important in modifying refractive error.