Assessing the rebound phenomenon in different myopia control treatments: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: To review the rebound effect after cessation of different myopia control treatments. METHODS: A systematic review that included full-length randomised controlled studies (RCTs), as well as post-hoc analyses of RCTs reporting new findings on myopia control treatments rebound effect in two databases, PubMed and Web of Science, was performed according to the PRISMA statement. The search period was between 15 June 2023 and 30 June 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to analyse the quality of the selected studies. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included in this systematic review. Unifying the rebound effects of all myopia control treatments, the mean rebound effect for axial length (AL) and spherical equivalent refraction (SER) were 0.10 ± 0.07 mm [-0.02 to 0.22] and -0.27 ± 0.2 D [-0.71 to -0.03] after 10.2 ± 7.4 months of washout, respectively. In addition, spectacles with highly aspherical lenslets or defocus incorporated multiple segments technology, soft multifocal contact lenses and orthokeratology showed lower rebound effects compared with atropine and low-level light therapy, with a mean rebound effect for AL and SER of 0.04 ± 0.04 mm [0 to 0.08] and -0.13 ± 0.07 D [-0.05 to -0.2], respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that the different treatments for myopia control produce a rebound effect after their cessation. Specifically, optical treatments seem to produce less rebound effect than pharmacological or light therapies. However, more studies are required to confirm these results.

Visual Performance of Two Designs of Myopia Management Soft Contact Lenses Compared with a Monofocal One in Young Adults.

Purpose: To compare the visual performance of two distinct types of soft contact lenses (CL) aimed at slowing down myopia progression with the performance of a monofocal soft CL. Methods: In a prospective double-masked, crossover trial, 18 myopic adults (aged 18-30 years old) were fitted in a randomized order with three types of disposable CL: MiSightTM (dual-focus), MyloTM (extended depth of focus -EDOF-), and ClaritiTM (single distance vision). Measurements were taken after wearing the CL for five days with five days off in between at two different optometry centers. High contrast distance visual acuity (VA) with spectacles and for each of the different CL, subjective refraction, slit lamp exam, aberrometry, stereopsis, monocular and binocular amplitude of accommodation and accommodative facility, and horizontal phorias were measured. Results: The high contrast distance VAwas better for the single vision CL compared to the myopia control CL. No significant differences were observed between the r two myopia control CL. The overall root mean square (RMS) was higher for the double focus CL (RMS = 1.18 ± 0.29 µm), followed by the EDOF CL (RMS = 0.76 ± 0.35 µm) and then the single vision CL (RMS = 0.50 ± 0.19 µm). The primary spherical aberration (SA) mean value was low for all of the three CL, without statistical differences among them. No other significant differences were detected. Conclusion: The overall RMS resulted in a higher value for the dual-focus than the EDOF CL, but no differences in high contrast distance VA and binocularity were detected between them. The monofocal CL's performance was better than the myopia control CL.

Tear film stability over a myopia control contact lens compared to a monofocal design.

Clinical relevance: Tear film assessment is essential in contact lens wearers and it can improve the success rates of the fitting.Background: To compare the short-term effect of two contact lenses on pre-lens tear film stability and comfort: dual-focus contact lens (MiSight) and a monofocal contact lens (Proclear 1-day).Methods: This randomised, double-masked, crossover study was performed in twenty-eight healthy, myopic volunteers aged between 18 and 32 years (23.5 ± 4.1 years). Only one randomly chosen eye was assessed. Distance vision and refraction were evaluated at baseline. Each contact lens type (monofocal and dual-focus) was randomly fitted, always in both eyes. A visual analogue scale between 0 and 10 was used to assess general comfort, physical comfort, and visual comfort. Tear Film Surface Quality (TFSQ) index, TFSQ_area and auto Tear Break-Up Time were obtained using Medmont E-300 at baseline (naked eye condition) and 25 minutes after each contact lens insertion.Results: Refractive sphere and cylinder were, respectively, -1.36 ± 1.04 D (ranging from -6.00 to -0.25 D) and -0.23 ± 0.30 D (ranging from -0.75 to 0.00 D). TFSQ and TFSQ area were lower (meaning more stable tear film) at baseline when compared with both contact lens types (p < 0.025). Higher pre-lens tear instability (larger TFSQ and_TFSQ area values) was found with the dual-focus than the monofocal lens. Auto Tear Break-Up Time was higher at baseline than with each of the contact lenses, without statistically significant differences between both contact lens types. Visual analogue scales revealed statistically significant better scores in the monofocal contact lens than in dual-focus contact lens for general (0.77 ± 1.14 vs 3.12 ± 2.79), physical (0.96 ± 1.46 vs 2.19 ± 2.45) and visual comfort (1.27 ± 1.66 vs 3.92 ± 2.04).Conclusion: A slight reduction in short-term pre-lens tear film stability was found in the dual-focus design in comparison with the monofocal lens, potentially contributing to the deterioration of visual performance and comfort during dual-focus contact lens wear.