Comparative Study of Relative Peripheral Refraction in Children With Different Degrees of Myopia

被引:9
|
作者
Lu Xiaoli [1 ]
Zheng Xiangyue [1 ]
Lian Lihua [1 ]
Huang Yuting [1 ]
Chuni, Lin [2 ]
Xia Yujie [2 ]
Zhao, Wang [2 ]
Yu Xiaoyi [1 ]
机构
[1] Guangzhou Univ Chinese Med, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Ophthalmol, Guangzhou, Peoples R China
[2] Guangzhou Univ Chinese Med, Clin Med Coll 1, Guangzhou, Peoples R China
关键词
multispectral refractive topography (MRT); relative peripheral refraction; retinal relative diopter (RDV); degrees of myopia; children; VISION; PROGRESSION; PREVALENCE; SHAPE;
D O I
10.3389/fmed.2022.800653
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
PurposeTo investigate the difference in the retinal refraction difference value (RDV) using multispectral refractive topography (MRT). MethodsNinety myopic participants, who met the enrolment requirements, were examined with an automatic optometer after mydriasis. According to the value of the spherical equivalent (SE), the participants were divided into Emmetropia group (E, +0.5D < SE < -0.5D), Low Myopia (LM, -0.5D < SE <= -3D), and Moderate and high Myopia (MM, -3D < SE <= -10D). The ocular biological parameters were detected by optical biometrics (Lenstar 900, Switzerland), including axial length (AL), lens thickness (LT), and keratometry (K1, K2). Furthermore, the MRT was used to measure the retinal RDV at three concentric areas, with 15-degree intervals from fovea into 45 degrees (RDV-15, RDV 15-30, and RDV 30-45), and four sectors, including RDV-S (RDV-Superior), RDV-I (RDV-Inferior), RDV-T (RDV-Temporal), and RDV-N (RDV-Nasal). ResultsIn the range of RDV-15, there was a significant difference in the value of RDV-15 between Group E (-0.007 +/- 0.148) vs. Group LM (-0.212 +/- 0.399), and Group E vs. Group MM (0.019 +/- 0.106) (P < 0.05); In the range of RDV 15-30, there was a significant difference in the value of RDV 15-30 between Group E (0.114 +/- 0.219) vs. Group LM (-0.106 +/- 0.332), and Group LM vs. Group MM (0.177 +/- 0.209; P < 0.05); In the range of RDV 30-45, there was a significant difference in the value of RDV 30-45 between Group E (0.366 +/- 0.339) vs. Group LM (0.461 +/- 0.304), and Group E vs. Group MM (0.845 +/- 0.415; P < 0.05); In the RDV-S position, there was a significant difference in the value of RDV-S between Group LM (-0.038 +/- 0.636) and Group MM (0.526 +/- 0.540) (P < 0.05); In the RDV-I position, there was a significant difference in the value of RDV-I between Group E (0.276 +/- 0.530) vs. Group LM (0.594 +/- 0.513), and Group E vs. Group MM (0.679 +/- 0.589; P < 0.05). In the RDV-T position, there was no significant difference in the value of RDV-T among the three groups. In the RDV-N position, there was a significant difference in the value of RDV-N between Group E (0.352 +/- 0.623) vs. Group LM (0.464 +/- 0.724), and Group E vs. Group MM (1.078 +/- 0.627; P < 0.05). The RDV analysis in all directions among the three groups showed a significant difference between RDV-S and RDV-I in Group LM (P < 0.05). Moreover, the correlation analysis showed that SE negatively correlated with AL, RDV 30-45, RDV-S, RDV-I, and RDV-N. ConclusionsIn this study, there was a significant difference in the value of RDV among Group E, Group LM, and Group MM, and the value of RDV in Group MM was the highest on the whole. In the range of RDV 30-45, there was a growing trend with the increase in the degree of myopia among the three groups. Furthermore, the SE negatively correlated with AL, RDV 30-45, RDV-S, RDV-I, and RDV-N.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The Association of Peripheral Refraction and Relative Peripheral Refraction with Astigmatism in Shanghai Schoolchildren's Myopia: A Cross-Sectional Study
    Chen, Huiyu
    Chen, Meng
    Zhang, Junjie
    Chen, Jun
    Xu, Yan
    OPHTHALMIC EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2025,
  • [2] Anisomyopia and orthokeratology for myopia control - Axial elongation and relative peripheral refraction
    Wang, Jianglan
    Cheung, Sin Wan
    Bian, Siyu
    Wang, Xingyu
    Liu, Longqian
    Cho, Pauline
    OPHTHALMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTICS, 2024, 44 (06) : 1261 - 1269
  • [3] Peripheral refraction of young adults with myopia: a cross-sectional study
    Alsaqr, Ali
    Alharbi, Manal
    Aldossary, Noura
    Alruwished, Abdulaziz
    Alharbi, Mohammed
    Alghaib, Khalid
    Alabdulkarim, Abeer
    Shatha, Alhamdan
    Abusharha, Ali
    JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2024, 52 (12)
  • [4] Relative peripheral refraction in children: twelve-month changes in eyes with different ametropias
    Lee, Tsui-Tsui
    Cho, Pauline
    OPHTHALMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTICS, 2013, 33 (03) : 283 - 293
  • [5] Relative peripheral refraction in school children with different refractive errors using a novel multispectral refraction topographer
    Hu, Hui-Ling
    Li, Serena Zhe-Chuang
    Feng, Ai-Ying
    Zhong, Hao-Xi
    Mu, Jing-Feng
    Liu, Mei-Zhou
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2024, 17 (08) : 1477 - 1482
  • [6] Stability of peripheral refraction changes in orthokeratology for myopia
    Gifford, Kate L.
    Gifford, Paul
    Hendicott, Peter L.
    Schmid, Katrina L.
    CONTACT LENS & ANTERIOR EYE, 2020, 43 (01) : 44 - 53
  • [7] Myopia Control Effect Is Influenced by Baseline Relative Peripheral Refraction in Children Wearing Defocus Incorporated Multiple Segments (DIMS) Spectacle Lenses
    Zhang, Hanyu
    Lam, Carly S. Y.
    Tang, Wing-Chun
    Leung, Myra
    Qi, Hua
    Lee, Paul H.
    To, Chi-Ho
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2022, 11 (09)
  • [8] Peripheral refraction in Japanese schoolchildren with low to moderate myopia
    Furuse, Takashi
    Hasebe, Satoshi
    Tokutake, Tomoki
    JAPANESE JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2022, 66 (01) : 74 - 80
  • [9] Relative peripheral refraction and its role in myopia onset in teenage students
    Qi, Lin-Song
    Yao, Lu
    Wang, Xue-Feng
    Zhao, Jin
    Liu, Yong
    Wu, Teng-Yun
    Yang, Qing-Hong
    Zhao, Chen
    Zou, Zhi-Kang
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2022, 15 (07) : 1108 - 1115
  • [10] Peripheral refraction in myopia corrected with spectacles versus contact lenses
    Backhouse, Simon
    Fox, Stephanie
    Ibrahim, Basma
    Phillips, John R.
    OPHTHALMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTICS, 2012, 32 (04) : 294 - 303