| Literature DB >> 35142785 |
Zhe Zhang1,2,3, Zhi Chen1,2,3, Zhuoyi Chen1,2,3, Jiaqi Zhou1,2,3, Li Zeng1,2,3, Feng Xue1,2,3, Xiaomei Qu1,2,3, Xingtao Zhou1,2,3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the correlation between the change in spatial corneal power distribution and axial length (AL) elongation during orthokeratology (Ortho-k) treatment using mathematical methods.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35142785 PMCID: PMC8842419 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.11.2.18
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol ISSN: 2164-2591 Impact factor: 3.283
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
| Inclusion Criteria |
| Refractive error between −1.00 to −4.00 D |
| Astigmatism below 1.50 D |
| FK between 40.00 and 46.00 D |
| Monocular CDVA no worse than 20/20 |
| Age ≤ 14 years |
| Exclusion Criteria |
| Any eye disorders |
| Any systemic disease |
| IOP greater than 21 mm Hg |
| History of CL wear in the past 30 days |
| Atropine treatment for myopia control |
FK, corneal refractive power along the flat meridian; IOP, intraocular pressure; CDVA, corrected distance visual acuity; CL, contact lens.
Figure 1.Power difference topography maps showing different power distribution patterns of two eyes with (A) lower aspheric treatment zone and (B) higher aspheric treatment zone. Relative corneal refractive power change and power exponent (nA, nB) corresponding to the two eyes shown above (C).
Baseline Ocular Biometrics of the Completed Cases and the Dropouts (Mean ± SD)
| Completed Cases (n = 67) | Dropouts (n = 9) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 10.02 ± 1.69 | 10.44 ± 1.81 | 0.49 |
| Sex (male/female) | 30/37 | 3/6 | 0.39 |
| SER (D) | −2.55 ± 0.90 | −2.36 ± 1.2 | 0.58 |
| Kf (D) | 42.66 ± 1.41 | 42.47 ± 0.89 | 0.51 |
| Ks(D) | 43.69 ± 1.30 | 43.49 ± 0.90 | 0.41 |
| AL(mm) | 24.64 ± 0.66 | 24.59 ± 0.93 | 0.84 |
In the 67 eyes being analyzed, the SER reduced significantly after the first month of lens wear (P < 0.001). AL significantly changed over time (P = 0.0003) with the annual growth being 0.32 ± 0.18 mm. Power exponent and RCRPC were stable throughout the follow-up visits (all P > 0.05).
Ocular Biometrics of the 67 Subjects (Mean ± SD)
| Baseline | 1 Month | 3 Month | 6 Month | 9 Month | 1 Year |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SER (D) | −2.55 ± 0.90 | −0.02 ± 0.15 | −0.19 ± 0.47 | −0.21 ± 0.46 | −0.43 ± 0.73 | −0.53 ± 0.81 | <0.0001 |
| AL (mm) | 24.64 ± 0.66 | — | — | 24.86 ± 0.65 | — | 24.96 ± 0.68 | 0.04 |
| AL elongation (mm) | 0.21 ± 0.11 | 0.32 ± 0.18 | 0.0003 | ||||
| Ymax (D) | — | 0.74 ± 0.49 | 0.78 ± 0.43 | 0.72 ± 0.53 | 0.73 ± 0.52 | 0.72 ± 0.49 | 0.91 |
| Xmax (mm) | — | 3.06 ± 0.30 | 2.97 ± 0.24 | 3.08 ± 0.35 | 3.014 ± 0.29 | 3.03 ± 0.35 | 0.46 |
| Power exponent | — | 0.63 ± 0.46 | 0.65 ± 0.41 | 0.53 ± 0.41 | 0.57 ± 0.48 | 0.52 ± 0.44 | 0.46 |
Figure 2.Curves showing corneal power distribution after orthokeratology lens wear. Standard deviation was removed for better profile comprehension.
Figure 3.Scatter plots showing the correlation between axial length elongation during one year of orthokeratology treatment with (A) age and (B) power exponent of the monomial function.