Efficacy comparison of repeated low-level red-light therapy and orthokeratology lenses for myopia control
Sun JR, Du ZQ, Wu GY
Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 5 citas
Etiquetas de revisión
Financiación no declaradaDatos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Ensayo clínico controlado (clasificado por nuestro filtro de IA)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación no declarada
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2024-11-01 · Optom Vis Sci · vol. 101 · número 11 · págs. 660–665
- Editorial
- Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
- Citado
- 9 citas · más que el 90% de estudios similares · 2.4× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 63 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (revista híbrida) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Áreas de investigación
- Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies · Corneal surgery and disorders · Retinopathy of Prematurity Studies
- Palabras clave
- Orthokeratology, Medicine, Repeated measures design, Ophthalmology, Astigmatism, Light therapy, Cycloplegia, Red light, Refractive error, Cornea, Internal medicine, Eye disease, Mathematics, Optics, Biology
- MeSH
- humans, myopia, refraction, ocular, treatment outcome, phototherapy, retrospective studies, follow-up studies, contact lenses, adolescent, child, female, male, orthokeratologic procedures, axial length, eye
3 autores
- Jing‐Ru Sun🇨🇳Jinhua Academy of Agricultural Sciences; Jinhua Central Hospital
- Zhiyu Du🇨🇳Jinhua Academy of Agricultural Sciences; Jinhua Central Hospital
- Gangyue Wu🇨🇳 · autor de correspondenciaJinhua Academy of Agricultural Sciences; Jinhua Central Hospital
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Purpose
This study aimed to compare and analyze the efficacy of repeated low-level red-light therapy and orthokeratology lenses for myopia control in children.
Methods
Exactly 138 participants were enrolled in this retrospective study. Comprehensive eye examinations were performed prior to treatment. The repeated low-level red-light therapy and orthokeratology lenses groups comprised 67 and 71 patients, respectively. The age range was between 6 and 14 years, with myopia of ≤-0.50 D and astigmatism of ≤2.50 D after cycloplegia. Follow-up data were collected during the initial visit and the treatment period. Changes in axial length over a 2-year period and associated factors were analyzed.
Results
Over the 2-year period, the repeated low-level red-light therapy group exhibited significantly less axial length growth compared with the orthokeratology lenses group (0.17 ± 0.40 vs. 0.50 ± 0.27 mm, p<0.001). In the first year, the axial length growth in the repeated low-level red-light therapy group was significantly less than that in the orthokeratology lenses group (0.03 ± 0.22 vs. 0.28 ± 0.18 mm, p<0.001), with no significant difference observed in the second year (0.14 ± 0.29 vs. 0.21 ± 0.14 mm, p=0.06). The repeated low-level red-light therapy group showed a 55% reduction in axial length after 1 month and a 42% reduction after 1 year, compared with 4% and 3% reductions in the orthokeratology lenses group, respectively. Linear mixed-effects model analysis indicated that the annual axial length change rate in the repeated low-level red-light therapy group was 0.10 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07 to 0.14), compared with 0.25 mm in the orthokeratology lenses group (95% CI, 0.24 to 0.27), with an average difference of 0.15 mm (95% CI, -0.17 to -0.12, p<0.001).
Conclusions
Repeated low-level red-light therapy demonstrated slightly superior efficacy in controlling myopia progression in children compared with orthokeratology lenses.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial (CC BY-NC-ND).
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.