Amorim-de-Sousa A, Macedo-de-Araújo RJ, Fernandes P, González-Méijome JM, Queirós A. Enhancement of the Inner Foveal Response of Young Adults with Extended-Depth-of-Focus Contact Lens for Myopia Management.
Vision (Basel) 2024;
8:19. [PMID:
38651440 PMCID:
PMC11036275 DOI:
10.3390/vision8020019]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2024] [Revised: 04/08/2024] [Accepted: 04/10/2024] [Indexed: 04/25/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Myopia management contact lenses have been shown to successfully decrease the rate of eye elongation in children by changing the peripheral refractive profile of the retina. Despite the efforts of the scientific community, the retinal response mechanism to defocus is still unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the local electrophysiological response of the retina with a myopia control contact lens (CL) compared to a single-vision CL of the same material.
METHODS
The retinal electrical activity and peripheral refraction of 16 eyes (16 subjects, 27.5 ± 5.7 years, 13 females and 3 males) with myopia between -0.75 D and -6.00 D (astigmatism < 1.00 D) were assessed with two CLs (Filcon 5B): a single-vision (SV) CL and an extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) CL used for myopia management. The peripheral refraction was assessed with an open-field WAM-5500 auto-refractometer/keratometer in four meridians separated by 45° at 2.50 m distance. The global-flash multifocal electroretinogram (gf-mfERG) was recorded with the Reti-port/scan21 (Roland Consult) using a stimulus of 61 hexagons. The implicit time (in milliseconds) and response density (RD, in nV/deg2) of the direct (DC) and induced (IC) components were used for comparison between lenses in physiological pupil conditions.
RESULTS
Although the EDOF decreased both the HCVA and the LCVA (one and two lines, respectively; p < 0.003), it still allowed a good VA. The EDOF lens induced a myopic shift in most retinal areas, with a higher and statistically significant effect on the nasal retina. No differences in the implicit times of the DC and IC components were observed between SV and EDOF. Compared with the SV, the EDOF lens showed a higher RD in the IC component in the foveal region (p = 0.032). In the remaining retinal areas, the EDOF evoked lower, non-statistically significant RD in both the DC and IC components.
CONCLUSIONS
The EDOF myopia control CL enhanced the response of the inner layers of the fovea. This might suggest that, besides other mechanisms potentially involved, the central foveal retinal activity might be involved in the mechanism of myopia control with these lenses.
Collapse