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 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Controlled clinical trial (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2024-11-01 · Optom Vis Sci · vol. 101 · issue 11 · pp. 660–665
- Publisher
- Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
- Cited
- 9 citations · more than 90% of similar papers · 2.4× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 63 works
- Access
- Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Research areas
- Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies · Corneal surgery and disorders · Retinopathy of Prematurity Studies
- Keywords
- 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 authors
From CN
- Jing‐Ru SunJinhua Academy of Agricultural Sciences; Jinhua Central Hospital
- Zhiyu DuJinhua Academy of Agricultural Sciences; Jinhua Central Hospital
- Gangyue Wu · correspondingJinhua Academy of Agricultural Sciences; Jinhua Central Hospital
Abstract
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.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY-NC-ND).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.