Vision Specific Quality of Life of Pediatric Contact Lens Wearers

New England College of Optometry, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Optometry and vision science: official publication of the American Academy of Optometry (Impact Factor: 1.6). 08/2010; 87(8):560-6. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181e6a1c8
Source: PubMed


Several studies have shown that children are capable of wearing and caring for contact lenses, but it is not known whether the benefits outweigh the risks associated with contact lens wear. The purpose of this article is to compare the vision-related quality of life benefits of children randomized to wear spectacles or contact lenses for 3 years using the Pediatric Refractive Error Profile.
The Pediatric Refractive Error Profile was administered to 484 children who wore glasses at baseline. The children were then randomly assigned to wear contact lenses (n = 247) or spectacles (n = 237) for 3 years. The survey was administered at the baseline examination, at 1 month, and every 6 months for 3 years.
During 3 years, the overall quality of life improved 14.2 +/- 18.1 units for contact lens wearers and 2.1 +/- 14.6 units for spectacle wearers (p < 0.001). In all scales except the visual performance scales (Distance Vision, Near Vision, and Overall Vision), the quality of life improved more for older subjects than younger subjects. The three scales with the largest improvement in quality of life for contact lens wearers were Activities, Appearance, and Satisfaction with Correction.
Myopic children younger than 12 years of age report better vision-related quality of life when they are fit with contact lenses than when they wear glasses. Older children, children who participate in recreational activities, children who are motivated to wear contact lenses, and children who do not like their appearance in glasses will benefit most.

20 Reads
  • Source

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nearsightedness (myopia) causes blurry vision when looking at distant objects. Highly nearsighted people are at greater risk of several vision-threatening problems such as retinal detachments, choroidal atrophy, cataracts and glaucoma. Interventions that have been explored to slow the progression of myopia include bifocal spectacles, cycloplegic drops, intraocular pressure-lowering drugs, muscarinic receptor antagonists and contact lenses. The purpose of this review was to systematically assess the effectiveness of strategies to control progression of myopia in children. To assess the effects of several types of interventions, including eye drops, undercorrection of nearsightedness, multifocal spectacles and contact lenses, on the progression of nearsightedness in myopic children younger than 18 years. We compared the interventions of interest with each other, to single vision lenses (SVLs) (spectacles), placebo or no treatment. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 10), MEDLINE (January 1950 to October 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2011), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to October 2011), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) ( and ( There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 11 October 2011. We also searched the reference lists and Science Citation Index for additional, potentially relevant studies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which participants were treated with spectacles, contact lenses or pharmaceutical agents for the purpose of controlling progression of myopia. We excluded trials where participants were older than 18 years at baseline or participants had less than -0.25 diopters (D) spherical equivalent myopia. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each included study. When possible, we analyzed data with the inverse variance method using a fixed-effect or random-effects model, depending on the number of studies and amount of heterogeneity detected. We included 23 studies (4696 total participants) in this review, with 17 of these studies included in quantitative analysis. Since we only included RCTs in the review, the studies were generally at low risk of bias for selection bias. Undercorrection of myopia was found to increase myopia progression slightly in two studies; children who were undercorrected progressed on average 0.15 D (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to 0.00) more than the fully corrected SVLs wearers at one year. Rigid gas permeable contact lenses (RGPCLs) were found to have no evidence of effect on myopic eye growth in two studies (no meta-analysis due to heterogeneity between studies). Progressive addition lenses (PALs), reported in four studies, and bifocal spectacles, reported in four studies, were found to yield a small slowing of myopia progression. For seven studies with quantitative data at one year, children wearing multifocal lenses, either PALs or bifocals, progressed on average 0.16 D (95% CI 0.07 to 0.25) less than children wearing SVLs. The largest positive effects for slowing myopia progression were exhibited by anti-muscarinic medications. At one year, children receiving pirenzepine gel (two studies), cyclopentolate eye drops (one study), or atropine eye drops (two studies) showed significantly less myopic progression compared with children receiving placebo (mean differences (MD) 0.31 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.44), 0.34 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.60), and 0.80 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.90), respectively). The most likely effective treatment to slow myopia progression thus far is anti-muscarinic topical medication. However, side effects of these medications include light sensitivity and near blur. Also, they are not yet commercially available, so their use is limited and not practical. Further information is required for other methods of myopia control, such as the use of corneal reshaping contact lenses or bifocal soft contact lenses (BSCLs) with a distance center are promising, but currently no published randomized clinical trials exist.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2011; 12(12):CD004916. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004916.pub3 · 6.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introducción Las lentes de contacto mejoran significativa-mente la calidad de vida de niños y adolescentes en la medida en que permiten una mejor estética y por lo tanto un menor rechazo a la corrección refractiva (1,2). Sin embargo, no sólo la estética sino también determinados factores funcionales obligan a considerar esta opción terapéutica. De esta manera condiciones como la afaquia o la ambliopía, altos defectos refractivos además de anormalidades estructurales congénitas y el trau-ma corneal pueden beneficiarse de su uso. Indicaciones Miopía Las lentes de contacto son útiles para la corrección de altos defectos miópicos debido a que permiten conservar el campo visual perifé-rico y reducen en menor medida el tamaño de la imagen que las gafas convencionales. Estas ventajas repercuten en una mejora de las capa-cidades motoras y perceptuales del niño. Hipermetropía Su presencia requiere corrección refractiva con el objeto de evitar la ambliopía o el estra-bismo acomodativo. Las lentes de contacto pro-porcionan en estos casos una mayor efectividad que las gafas porque reducen la demanda aco-modativa y la demanda de la convergencia, eli-minando el efecto prismático base externa inducido por las lentes oftálmicas. De esta manera se produce una disminución aparente del coeficiente AC/A con la consiguiente reducción del ángulo de endotropia o endoforia (3).
Show more

Similar Publications