Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Purpose: To assess the short-term impact of different types of contact lenses on accommodation in the same group of myopic children compared with single-vision spectacle lenses.
Methods: Thirty myopic children aged 10.2 ± 1.5 years were enrolled. Each participant was corrected with four different modalities in following sequence: single-vision spectacles (SVSP), single-vision soft contact lens (SVSCL), a high-addition multifocal soft contact lens (MFSCL), and orthokeratology lenses (OKL). Measurements included the dynamic accommodative stimulus-response curve (ASRC), distance accommodative facility (DAF), negative relative accommodation (NRA), and positive relative accommodation (PRA). Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction was performed.
Results: The accommodative parameters differed among the four modalities except for the slope of ASRC ( F = 1.700, P = 0.173). Single-vision spectacle lens exhibited the highest accommodative lag area (10.08 ± 1.65 D 2 ) and the lowest objective accommodative amplitude (7.72 ± 0.93 D) and PRA (-2.51 ± 0.62 D) (all P < 0.05). Multifocal soft contact lens, OKL, and SVSCL showed no significant differences in accommodative lag area (8.93 ± 1.78, 7.98 ± 2.33, 8.44 ± 2.20 D 2 ), NRA (2.23 ± 0.33, 2.23 ± 0.38, 2.39 ± 0.33 D), PRA (-3.05 ± 0.78, -3.43 ± 1.05, 3.00 ± 1.02 D), or DAF (23.8 ± 6.99, 26.0 ± 8.23, 23.3 ± 7.07 D); however, OKL (8.68 ± 1.08 D) induced greater objective accommodative amplitude than SVSCL (8.26 ± 0.97 D) ( P = 0.010).
Conclusions: Single-vision spectacles exhibited worse accommodative function than the other three modalities. However, no significant changes in accommodation were detected when using OKL or high-addition MFSCL compared with SVSCL, except higher objective accommodative amplitude with OKL than SVSCL.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000001183 | DOI Listing |