4.5 Article

The use of rigid gas permeable contact lenses in children with myopic amblyopia: A case series

Journal

CONTACT LENS & ANTERIOR EYE
Volume 41, Issue 2, Pages 224-228

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2017.05.007

Keywords

Rigid gas permeable contact lenses; Myopic; Amblyopia

Categories

Funding

  1. Scientific research projects of Shanghai [14411969500]
  2. Shanghai Municipal Health Bureau Research Projects [201540366]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To explore the safety profile and overall visual improvement over the course of RGP contact lens wear on children with unilateral or bilateral amblyopia resulting from myopia. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis case series study. Clinical records of 15 patients who were fitted with RGP contact lenses at the Shanghai Eye and EENT Hospital of Fudan University between the period of January 2009 to December 2014 were reviewed. The inclusion criteria for review included patients with myopia of -3.00DS or greater in one or both eyes and an initial best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of logMAR 0.4 or worse for 3 year olds, and logMAR 0.3 or worse for 4 years old and above. One or both myopic eyes were fitted with RGP lenses. Results: 15 subjects and 22 amblyopic eyes were included. The mean baseline BCVA was logMAR 0.70 +/- 0.38, which improved to a VA of 0.23 +/- 0.28 at the time of review (p < 0.05). Baseline myopia also increased from -8.18 +/- 2.93DS to -11.41 +/- 3.76DS (p < 0.05). The final visual acuity at the time of this review was correlated with the initial refractive error (r =-0.695, p < 0.05) as well as the initial BCVA (r = 0.854, p < 0.05). There was also a strong correlation between initial refractive error and initial BCVA (r = 0.-801, p < 0.05) Conclusion: RGP contact lens wear is a safe and effective refractive treatment option in young children with amblyopia due to myopia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available