Comparison of three VST orthokeratology lenses in axial length growth and average corneal reshaping in myopia children: A retrospective self-controlled study

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the differences in myopia control efficiency and corneal reshaping between three different brands of orthokeratology (OK) lenses (Lucid, Euclid, and Alpha).

Method

We retrospectively reviewed subjects who started simultaneously using different brands of OK lenses. For each participant, every 6 months in the 19 months of following, the changes in axial length (AL), horizontal and vertical maximum distances of the treatment zone (HMDTZ and VMDTZ), width of the high convex zone (WHCZ), distance of decentration, and horizontal and vertical components of the decentration vector were measured. The average values of the above data, the average value of the decentration vector (ADV), and the average value of decentration calculated algebraically (ADA) were calculated.

Results

All the three pairs (Lucid (n = 46) vs. Euclid (n = 46): groups Lucid-versus-Euclid-Lucid (LE-L) and LE-E), Lucid (n = 50) vs. Alpha (n = 50): groups LA-L and LA-A), and Euclid (n = 17) vs. Alpha (n = 17): groups EA-E and EA-A) showed good comparability. Regarding the change in AL during 19 months, none of the pairs showed significant differences (LE-L:0.27 ± 0.24 mm, LE-E:0.31 ± 0.24 mm (p = 0.68); LA-L:0.36 ± 0.26 mm, LA-A:0.36 ± 0.27 mm (p = 0.85); EA-E:0.34 ± 0.27 mm, EA-A:0.41 ± 0.28 mm (p = 0.63)). Regarding treatment zone, Lucid showed the largest HMDTZ and VMDTZ (both p < 0.05). Regarding the WHCZ, none of the pairs showed significant differences. For the ADV and ADA, Lucid had more ADV and ADA than Euclid (ADV: LE-L:0.73 ± 0.44 mm, LE-E:0.55 ± 0.45 mm, p < 0.05; ADA: LE-L:0.80 ± 0.41 mm, LE-E:0.63 ± 0.44 mm, p < 0.05), and the remaining pairs showed no significant difference. For the overall cohort with 113 eyes, the change in AL was weakly correlated with both ADV and ADA (both p < 0.05). Regarding the ADV/ADA, all pairs showed no significant differences, indicating equal lens position stability.

Conclusion

After OK, there were no significant differences between the different pairs of the three brands in AL growth, WHCZ, or lens position stability, although Lucid had a larger treatment zone than Euclid and Alpha, and Lucid had more decentration than Euclid. A larger lens decentration were weakly related to less AL growth.