目的 研究近视儿童在配戴角膜塑形镜前及3个月后，调节反应及调节过程中眼前节形态的变化。方法 前瞻性实验研究。本实验共纳入18名进展性近视青少年[（14.4±2.6）岁]作为研究对象。在配戴角膜塑形镜前及持续夜戴3个月后（摘镜后2 h内），在采用Badal光学系统矫正受检者屈光不正的基础上，使用开放视野型红外验光仪分别在0 D、3 D和5 D的调节刺激下测量眼球屈光力，并计算调节反应量。同时使用实验室自行搭建的超长深度光学相干断层扫描仪（OCT）获取不同调节刺激下眼前节形态，每种刺激均重复拍摄2次。眼前节形态参数包括瞳孔直径（PD）、前房深度（ACD）、晶状体厚度（LT）以及晶状体前表面曲率半径（LAC）。分析戴镜前及戴镜3个月后调节反应及眼前节形态变化量的差异，数据采用配对t检验进行比较。结果 在配戴角膜塑形镜3个月后，调节反应在3 D[（1.72±0.59）D vs. （2.42±0.84）D]和5 D[（3.09±0.63）D vs. （3.61±0.86）D]刺激下均显著增加，差异有统计学意义（t=2.84、2.12，P＜0.05）。戴镜3个月后，2种调节刺激下调节刺激前后的ΔACD、ΔLAC、ΔPD、ΔLT均较戴镜前变化更为显著。ΔACD[3 D：（-0.11±0.04）mm vs. （-0.16±0.06）mm，t=3.88，P＜0.01；5 D：（-0.15±0.05）mm vs. （-0.20±0.07）mm，t=2.37，P＜0.05]、ΔLAC[3 D：（-2.60±0.79）mm vs. （-3.81±1.08）mm，t=3.96，P＜0.01；5 D：（-3.57±1.14）mm vs. （-4.32±1.36）mm，t=2.08，P＜0.05]、ΔLT[3 D：（0.22±0.13）mm vs. （0.27±0.06）mm，t=-1.94，P＜0.05；5 D：（0.26±0.09）mm vs. （0.30±0.10）mm，t=-1.99，P＜0.05]在戴镜前后的差异均有统计学意义，而ΔPD仅在3 D[（-1.55±0.42）mm vs. （-1.71±0.37）mm]调节刺激下变化量具有统计学意义（t=1.76，P＜0.05）。结论 配戴角膜塑形镜后，调节过程中调节反应及眼前节形态的变化幅度增大，调节滞后减少，调节功能得到改善。
Objective To investigate the changes in accommodative response and anterior segment biometry during accommodation in young progressive myopes who wear overnight orthokeratology lenses. Methods Eighteen children (age: 14.4±2.6 years) were enrolled in this prospective experimental study and were tested before wearing orthokeratology (OK) lenses and after wearing them for three months. Using a Badal optical system, the refractive error of each subject was corrected before and after lens wear, and then accommodative stimuli of 3 D and 5 D were presented. A custom-built optical coherence tomographer (OCT) with a long scan depth was used to image the entire anterior segment through the pupil, and to obtain the anterior segment biometry including pupil diameter (PD), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT) and the lens anterior surface′s radius of curvature (LAC). An auto-refractometer (WAM-5500) was used to measure ocular refraction during accommodation, which was used to calculate the accommodative response. The measurements of anterior segment biometry and accommodative response were repeated twice under each accommodative state. Results After wearing orthokeratology lenses for one to three months, an improvement in the accommodative response was evident under both the 3 D (1.72±0.59 D vs. 2.42±0.84 D) and 5 D (3.09±0.63 D vs. 3.61±0.86 D) accommodative states (paired t-test, t=2.84, 2.12, P＜0.05). During accommodation, ΔPD, ΔACD, ΔLT, and ΔLAC changed obviously. Compared with baseline (before wearing OK lenses), accommodation-related changes in ΔACD (3 D: -0.11±0.04 mm vs. -0.16±0.06 mm, t=3.88, P＜0.01; 5 D: -0.15±0.05 mm vs. -0.20±0.07 mm, t=2.37, P＜0.05), ΔLAC (3 D:-2.60±0.79 mm vs. -3.81±1.08 mm, t=3.96, P＜0.01; 5 D: -3.57±1.14 mm vs. -4.32±1.36 mm, t=2.08, P＜0.05) and ΔLT (3 D: 0.22±0.13 mm vs. 0.27±0.06 mm, t=-1.94, P＜0.05; 5 D: 0.26±0.09 mm vs. 0.30±0.10 mm, t=-1.99, P＜0.05) showed statistically significant increases. Conclusion After wearing orthokeratology lenses for 3 months, the accommodative response and changes in the anterior segment biometry increase in myopic children.
朱伟根,张莎莎,邵一磊,等. 角膜塑形术后眼前节形态及调节功能. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2016, 18(4):232-236. DOI:DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2016.04.008.
Zhu Weigen,Zhang Shasha,Shao Yilei,et al. Anterior segment biometry and accommodative function after orthokeratology. Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual science, 2016, 18(4):232-236.
Swarbrick HA. Orthokeratology review and update[J]. Clin Exp Optom,2006,89(3):124-143. DOI:10.1111/j.1444-0938.2006.00044.x.
[2]
Cho P, Cheung SW, Edwards M. The longitudinal orthokeratology research in children (LORIC) in Hong Kong: a pilot study on refractive changes and myopic control[J]. Curr Eye Res,2005,30(1):71-80. DOI:10.1080/02713680590907256.
[3]
Cheung SW, Cho P. Validity of axial length measurements for monitoring myopic progression in orthokeratology[J]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci,2013,54(3):1613-1615. DOI:10.1167/iovs.12-10434.
[4]
Kang P, Swarbrick H. Time course of the effects of orthokeratology on peripheral refraction and corneal topography[J]. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt,2013,33(3):277-282. DOI:10.1111/Opo.12027.
[5]
Hiraoka T, Kakita T, Okamoto F, et al. Influence of ocular wavefront aberrations on axial length elongation in myopic children treated with overnight orthokeratology[J]. Ophthalmology,2015,122(1):93-100. DOI:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.07.042.
[6]
Weizhong L, Zhikuan Y, Wen L, et al. A longitudinal study on the relationship between myopia development and near accommodation lag in myopic children[J]. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt,2008,28(1):57-61. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-1313.2007.00536.x.
[7]
Gwiazda J, Thorn F, Held R. Accommodation, accommodative convergence, and response AC/A ratios before and at the onset of myopia in children[J]. Optom Vis Sci,2005,82(4):273-278.
Reim TR, Lund M, Wu R. Orthokeratology and adolescent myopia control[J]. Contact Lens Spectrum,2003,18(3):40-42.(未找到)
[11]
Walline JJ, Jones LA, Sinnott LT. Corneal reshaping and myopia progression[J]. Br J Ophthalmol,2009,93(9):1181-1185. DOI:10. 1136/bjo.2008.151365.
[12]
Kakita T, Hiraoka T, Oshika T. Influence of overnight orthokeratology on axial elongation in childhood myopia[J]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci,2011,52(5):2170-2174. DOI:10.1167/iovs.10-5485.
[13]
Cho P, Cheung SW. Retardation of myopia in orthokeratology (ROMIO) study: a 2-year randomized clinical trial[J]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci,2012,53(11):7077-7085. DOI:10.1167/iovs.12-10565.
[14]
Hiraoka T, Kakita T, Okamoto F, et al. Long-term effect of overnight orthokeratology on axial length elongation in childhood myopia: a 5-year follow-up study[J]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2012,53(7):3913-3919. DOI:10.1167/iovs.11-8453.
[15]
Santodomingo-Rubido J, Villa-Collar C, Gilmartin B, et al. Myopia control with orthokeratology contact lenses in spain: refractive and biometric changes[J]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci,2012,53(8): 5060-5065. DOI:10.1167/iovs.11-8005.
[16]
González-Mesa A, Villa-Collar C, Lorente-Velázquez A, et al. Anterior segment changes produced in response to long-term overnight orthokeratology[J]. Curr Eye Res,2013,38(8):862-870.DOI:10.3109/02713683.2013.790977.
[17]
Wallman J, Winawer J. Homeostasis of eye growth and the question of myopia[J]. Neuron,2004,43(4):447-468. DOI:10.1016/j.neuron.2004.08.008.
Charman WN, Mountford J, Atchison DA, et al. Peripheral refraction in orthokeratology patients[J]. Optom Vis Sci,2006,83(9):641-648. DOI:10.1097/01.opx.0000232840.66716.af.
[20]
Backhouse S, Fox S, Ibrahim B, et al. Peripheral refraction in myopia corrected with spectacles versus contact lenses[J]. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt,2012,32(4):294-303. DOI:10.1111/j.1475- 1313.2012.00912.x.
[21]
Chen Z, Niu L, Xue F, et al. Impact of pupil diameter on axial growth in orthokeratology[J]. Optom Vis Sci,2012,89(11):1636-1640. DOI:10.1097/OPX.0b013e31826c1831.
[22]
Gifford P, Li M, Lu H, et al. Corneal versus ocular aberrations after overnight orthokeratology[J]. Optom Vis Sci,2013,90(5):439-447. DOI:10.1097/OPX.0b013e31828ec594.
浙公网安备 33030202001892号