Top

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology

Published in:

01-01-2019 | Pediatrics

Binocular and accommodative function in the controlled randomized clinical trial MiSight® Assessment Study Spain (MASS)

Authors: Alicia Ruiz-Pomeda, Belén Pérez-Sánchez, Pilar Cañadas, Francisco Luis Prieto-Garrido, Ramón Gutiérrez-Ortega, César Villa-Collar

Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Issue 1/2019

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the binocular and accommodative function in children wearing dual focus (DF) MiSight® contact lenses (CLs) for myopia control compared with children wearing single-vision (SV) spectacles.

Methods

This was a randomized, controlled clinical trial involving subjects aged 8 to 12, with myopia ranging from − 0.75 to − 4.00D and astigmatism < 1.00D, allocated to MiSight® study CLs group or control group wearing SV. Binocular and accommodative function was determined at baseline, 12-, and 24-month visits, assessed by the following sequence of tests: distance and near horizontal phoria, accommodative convergence/accommodation (AC/A) ratio, stereopsis, accommodative amplitude (AA), and accommodative response (AR) at 33, 25 and 20 cm.

Results

Seventy-four children completed the study: 41 in the CL group and 33 in the SV group. CLs group did not show any significant differences in binocular and accommodative measurements throughout the study. In control group, distance and near phoria, stereopsis, AC/A and AR at 20 cm did not show any significant change, but AA, AR at 33 cm and AR at 25 cm were greater at 24-month visit compared with baseline (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

DF lenses do not change the binocular and accommodative function in children wearing dual focus CLs.

Trial registration

NCT01917110

Saw SM, Wu HM, Seet B, Wong TY, Yap E, Chia KS, Lee L (2001) Academic achievement, close up work parameters, and myopia in Singapore military conscripts. Br J Ophthalmol 85:855–860CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Mutti DO, Mitchell GL, Moeschberger ML, Jones LA, Zadnik K (2002) Parental myopia, near work, school achievement, and children’s refractive error. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:3633–3640PubMed

Ip JM, Saw S-M, Rose KA, Morgan IG, Kifley A, Wang JJ, Mitchell P (2008) Role of near work in myopia: findings in a sample of Australian school children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:2903–2910. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.07-0804 CrossRefPubMed

Fernández-Montero A, Olmo-Jimenez JM, Olmo N, Bes-Rastrollo M, Moreno-Galarraga L, Moreno-Montañés J, Martínez-González MA (2015) The impact of computer use in myopia progression: a cohort study in Spain. Prev Med 71:67–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.12.005 CrossRefPubMed

Sherwin JC, Reacher MH, Keogh RH, Khawaja AP, Mackey DA, Foster PJ (2012) The association between time spent outdoors and myopia in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 119:2141–2151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.04.020 CrossRefPubMed

Guggenheim JA, Northstone K, McMahon G, Ness AR, Deere K, Mattocks C, Williams C (2012) Time outdoors and physical activity as predictors of incident myopia in childhood: a prospective cohort study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:2856–2865. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.11-9091 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Torii H, Kurihara T, Seko Y, Negishi K, Ohnuma K, Inaba T, Tsubota K (2017) Violet light exposure can be a preventive strategy against myopia progression. Ebiomedicine 15:210–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.12.007 CrossRefPubMed

Rose KA, Morgan IG, Ip J, Kifley A, Huynh S, Smith W, Mitchell P (2008) Outdoor activity reduces the prevalence of myopia in children. Ophthalmology 115:1279–1285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.12.019 CrossRefPubMed

Aller TA, Liu M, Wildsoet CF (2016) Myopia control with bifocal contact lenses: a randomized clinical trial. Optom Vis Sci 93:344–352. https://doi.org/10.1097/opx.0000000000000808 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Liu Y, Wildsoet C (2011) The effect of two-zone concentric bifocal spectacle lenses on refractive error development and eye growth in young chicks. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:1078–1086. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.10-5716 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Liu Y, Wildsoet C (2012) The effective add inherent in 2-zone negative lenses inhibits eye growth in myopic young chicks. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:5085–5093. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.12-9628 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Benavente-Perez A, Nour A, Troilo D (2014) Axial eye growth and refractive error development can be modified by exposing the peripheral retina to relative myopic or hyperopic defocus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 55:6765–6773. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.14-14524 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Smith EL 3rd (1998) Spectacle lenses and emmetropization: the role of optical defocus in regulating ocular development. Optom Vis Sci 75:388–398CrossRefPubMed

14.

Jimenez JR, Durban JJ, Anera RG (2002) Maximum disparity with acuvue bifocal contact lenses with changes in illumination. Optom Vis Sci 79:170–174CrossRefPubMed

15.

Scheiman M, Wick B (2008) Clinical management of binocular vision: heterophoric, accommodative, and eye movement disorders. Wolters Kluwer Health/lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

16.

Alpern M (1949) Accommodation and convergence with contact lenses. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 26:379–387CrossRefPubMed

17.

Robertson DM, Ogle KN, Dyer JA (1967) Influence of contact lenses on accommodation: theoretic considerations and clinical study. Am J Ophthalmol 64:860–871CrossRefPubMed

18.

Carney LG, Woo GC (1977) Comparison of accommodation with rigid and flexible contact lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Optic 54:595–597CrossRef

19.

Hunt OA, Wolffsohn JS, García-Resúa C (2006) Ocular motor triad with single vision contact lenses compared to spectacle lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 29:239–245CrossRefPubMed

20.

Jimenez R, Martinez-Almeida L, Salas C, Ortiz C (2011) Contact lenses vs spectacles in myopes: is there any difference in accommodative and binocular function? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249:925–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-010-1570-z CrossRefPubMed

21.

Fulk GW, Cyert LA, Parker DE, West RW (2003) The effect of changing from glasses to soft contact lenses on myopia progression in adolescents. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 23:71–77CrossRefPubMed

22.

Felipe-Marquez G, Nombela-Palomo M, Palomo-Alvarez C, Cacho I, Nieto-Bona A (2017) Binocular function changes produced in response to overnight orthokeratology. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 255:179–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-016-3554-0 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Felipe-Marquez G, Nombela-Palomo M, Cacho I, Nieto-Bona A (2015) Accommodative changes produced in response to overnight orthokeratology. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 253:619–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-014-2865-2. CrossRef

24.

Ruiz-Pomeda A, Perez-Sanchez B, Valls I, Prieto-Garrido FL, Gutierrez-Ortega R, Villa-Collar C (2018) MiSight Assessment Study Spain (MASS). A 2-year randomized clinical trial. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-3906-z

25.

Anstice NS, Phillips JR (2011) Effect of dual-focus soft contact lens wear on axial myopia progression in children. Ophthalmology 118:1152–1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.10.035 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Ruiz-Pomeda A, Pérez-Sánchez B, Prieto-Garrido FL, Gutiérrez-Ortega R, Villa-Collar C (2018) MiSight Assessment Study Spain: adverse events, tear film osmolarity, and discontinuations. Eye Contact Lens. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000484

27.

Pomeda AR, Pérez-Sánchez B, Cañadas Suárez MDP, Prieto Garrido FL, Gutiérrez-Ortega R, Villa-Collar C (2017) MiSight Assessment Study Spain: a comparison of vision-related quality-of-life measures between MiSight contact lenses and single-vision spectacles. Eye Contact Lens. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000413

28.

Jiménez R, Pérez MA, García JA, González MD (2004) Statistical normal values of visual parameters that characterize binocular function in children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 24:528–542CrossRefPubMed

29.

Scheiman M, Gallaway M, Frantz KA, Peters RJ, Hatch S, Cuff M et al (2003) Nearpoint of convergence: test procedure, target selection, and normative data. Optom Vis Sci 80:214–225CrossRefPubMed

30.

Gwiazda J, Thorn F, Bauer J, Held R (1993) Myopic children show insufficient accommodative response to blur. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34:690–694PubMed

31.

Nakatsuka C, Hasebe S, Nonaka F, Ohtsuki H (2005) Accommodative lag under habitual seeing conditions: comparison between myopic and emmetropic children. Jpn J Ophthalmol 49:189–194CrossRefPubMed

32.

Kang P, Wildsoet CF (2016) Acute and short-term changes in visual function with multifocal soft contact lens wear in young adults. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 39:133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2015.09.004 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Maples WC, Hoenes R (2007) Near point of convergence norms measured in elementary school children. Optom Vis Sci 84:224–228CrossRefPubMed

34.

Gwiazda J, Grice K, Thorn F (1999) Response AC/A ratios are elevated in myopic children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 19:173–179CrossRefPubMed

35.

Ciuffreda KJ, Rosenfield M, Chen HW (1997) The AC/a ratio, age and presbyopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 17:307–315CrossRefPubMed

36.

Mutti DO, Jones LA, Moeschberger ML, Zadnik K (2000) AC/A ratio, age, and refractive error in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:2469–2478PubMed

37.

Jiménez R, Martínez-Almeida L, Salas C, Ortíz C (2011) Contact lenses vs spectacles in myopes: is there any difference in accommodative and binocular function? Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249:925–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-010-1570-z CrossRef

38.

Chen AH, O’Leary DJ (2002) Are there age differences in the accommodative response curve between 3 and 14 years of age? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 22:119–125CrossRefPubMed

39.

Anderson HA, Glasser A, Manny RE, Stuebing KK (2010) Age-related changes in accommodative dynamics from preschool to adulthood. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51:614–622. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.09-3653 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Sreenivasan V, Irving EL, Bobier WR (2011) Effect of near adds on the variability of accommodative response in myopic children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 31:145–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2010.00818.x CrossRefPubMed

41.

Mordi JA, Ciuffreda KJ (1998) Static aspects of accommodation: age and presbyopia. Vis Res 38:1643–1653CrossRefPubMed

42.

Charman WN, Radhakrishnan H (2009) Accommodation, pupil diameter and myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 29:72–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00611.x CrossRefPubMed

43.

Abbott ML, Schmid KL, Strang NC (1998) Differences in the accommodation stimulus response curves of adult myopes and emmetropes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 18:13–20CrossRefPubMed

44.

Norton TT, Gamlin PD (1999) The near response, emmetropia and myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 19:79–80CrossRefPubMed

45.

Mutti DO, Mitchell GL, Hayes JR, Jones LA, Moeschberger ML, Cotter SA et al (2006) Accommodative lag before and after the onset of myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:837–846CrossRefPubMed

46.

Gong CR, Troilo D, Richdale K (2017) Accommodation and phoria in children wearing multifocal contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 94:353–360. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001044. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Paune J, Thivent S, Armengol J, Quevedo L, Faria-Ribeiro M, Gonzalez-Meijome JM (2016) Changes in peripheral refraction, higher-order aberrations, and accommodative lag with a radial refractive gradient contact lens in young myopes. Eye Contact Lens 42:380–387. https://doi.org/10.1097/icl.0000000000000222 CrossRefPubMed

48.

Goss DA (1986) Effect of bifocal lenses on the rate of childhood myopia progression. Am J Optom Physiol Optic 63:135–141CrossRef

49.

Goss DA, Grosvenor T (1990) Rates of childhood myopia progression with bifocals as a function of nearpoint phoria: consistency of three studies. Optom Vis Sci 67:637–640CrossRefPubMed

50.

Fulk GW, Cyert LA, Parker DE (2000) A randomized trial of the effect of single-vision vs. bifocal lenses on myopia progression in children with esophoria. Optom Vis Sci 77:395–401CrossRefPubMed

Title: Binocular and accommodative function in the controlled randomized clinical trial MiSight® Assessment Study Spain (MASS)
Authors: Alicia Ruiz-Pomeda
Belén Pérez-Sánchez
Pilar Cañadas
Francisco Luis Prieto-Garrido
Ramón Gutiérrez-Ortega
César Villa-Collar
Publication date: 01-01-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0721-832X
Electronic ISSN: 1435-702X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-4115-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Binocular and accommodative function in the controlled randomized clinical trial MiSight® Assessment Study Spain (MASS)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

ADenoVirus Initiative Study in Epidemiology (ADVISE)—results of a multicenter epidemiology study in Germany

Vitreous and intraretinal macular changes in diabetic macular edema with and without tractional components

Aqueous tap and rapid diagnosis of cytomegalovirus anterior uveitis: the Reggio Emilia experience

Anterior segment Scheimpflug imaging for detecting primary angle closure disease

Hyperreflective foci in Stargardt disease: 1-year follow-up

Optical coherence tomography angiography assessment of the macular capillary plexus after surgery for macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment