Effect of overnight orthokeratology on conjunctival goblet cells

Objective: To evaluate the differences between goblet cell density (GCD) and symptomatology after one month of orthokeratology lens wear. Methods: A pilot, short-term study was conducted. Twenty-two subjects (29.7. ±. 7.0 years old) participated voluntarily in the study. Subjects were divided into two groups: habitual silicone hydrogel contact lens wearers (SiHCLW) and new contact lens wearers (NCLW). Schirmer test, tear break up time (TBUT), Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire and conjunctival impression cytology. GCD, mucin cloud height (MCH) and cell layer thickness (CLT) were measured. All measurements were performed before orthokeratology fitting and one month after fitting to assess the evolution of the changes throughout this time. Results: No differences in tear volume and TBUT between groups were found (p>0.05). However, the OSDI score was statistically better after one month of orthokeratology lens wear than the baseline for the SiHCLW group (p=0.03). Regarding the goblet cell analysis, no differences were found in CLT and MCH from the baseline visit to the one month visit for the SiHCLW compared with NCLW groups (p>0.05). At baseline, the GCD in the SiHCLW group were statistically lower than NCLW group (p<0.001). There was a significant increase in GCD after orthokeratology fitting from 121±140cell/mm2 to 254±130cell/mm2 (p<0.001) in the SiHCLW group. Conclusion: Orthokeratology improves the dry eye subject symptoms and GCD after one month of wearing in SiHCLW. These results suggest that orthokeratology could be considered a good alternative for silicone hydrogel contact lens discomfort and dryness. © 2016 British Contact Lens Association.

Accommodative changes produced in response to overnight orthokeratology

Background To evaluate short-term (3 months) and long-term (3 years) accommodative changes produced by overnight orthokeratology (OK). Methods A prospective, longitudinal study on young adult subjects with low to moderate myopia was carried out. A total of 93 patients took part in the study. Out of these, 72 were enrolled into the short-term follow-up: 21 were on a control group, 26 on a Paragon CRT contact lenses group, and 25 on a Seefree contact lenses group. The other 21 patients were old CRT wearers on long-term follow-up. Accommodative function was assessed by means of negative and positive relative accommodation (NRA / PRA), monocular accommodative amplitude (MAA), accommodative lag, and monocular accommodative facility (MAF). These values were compared among the three short-term groups at the follow-up visit. The long- and short-term follow-up data was compared among the CRT groups. Results Subjective accommodative results did not suffer any statistically significant changes in any of the accommodative tests for any of the short-term groups when compared to baseline. There were no statistically significant differences between the three short-term groups at the follow-up visit. When comparing the short- and long-term groups, only the NRA showed a significant difference (p = 0.0006) among all the accommodation tests. Conclusions OK does not induce changes in the ocular accommodative function for either short-term or long-term periods.