We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
Stability of refraction and visual acuity during 5 years in eyes with simple myopia. The PERK Study Group.
Refractive & Corneal Surgery 1992 November
BACKGROUND: Normal ranges of variability of refraction and visual acuity in adult myopic eyes are needed as a reference standard for assessing the stability of refractive corneal surgery.
METHODS: We measured the changes in spectacle-corrected visual acuity and cycloplegic refraction during 5 years for the unoperated eye of 82 patients aged 21 to 57 years in the Prospective Evaluation of Radial Keratotomy Study. The changes were compared for contact lens and non-contact lens wearers. We also compared the 5-year cycloplegic and manifest refractions for these unoperated eyes.
RESULTS: Of 77 eyes, 44% gained or lost one Snellen line and 48% experienced no change in spectacle-corrected visual acuity between baseline and 5 years. Only one eye (1%) lost two lines, and 7% gained two lines. The refractive change was less than 1.00 D for 84% of the 37 non-contact lens wearing eyes. Only 13% became more myopic by at least 1.00 D (maximum increase in myopia, 2.00 D), and 3% became less myopic by 1.00 D. Of 45 contact lens wearing eyes, 38% became more myopic by at least 1.00 D. The 5-year manifest refraction was 0.50 D to 1.50 D more myopic than the cycloplegic refraction for 37% of eyes.
CONCLUSIONS: We recommend using two or more Snellen lines as the standard for a meaningful change in spectacle-corrected visual acuity in operated eyes, and 1.00 D as a meaningful cutoff for stability of refraction. The wearing of contact lenses can confound the results of stability studies. The difference between the cycloplegic and manifest refractions suggests that the cycloplegic refraction should be used in planning for refractive surgery.
METHODS: We measured the changes in spectacle-corrected visual acuity and cycloplegic refraction during 5 years for the unoperated eye of 82 patients aged 21 to 57 years in the Prospective Evaluation of Radial Keratotomy Study. The changes were compared for contact lens and non-contact lens wearers. We also compared the 5-year cycloplegic and manifest refractions for these unoperated eyes.
RESULTS: Of 77 eyes, 44% gained or lost one Snellen line and 48% experienced no change in spectacle-corrected visual acuity between baseline and 5 years. Only one eye (1%) lost two lines, and 7% gained two lines. The refractive change was less than 1.00 D for 84% of the 37 non-contact lens wearing eyes. Only 13% became more myopic by at least 1.00 D (maximum increase in myopia, 2.00 D), and 3% became less myopic by 1.00 D. Of 45 contact lens wearing eyes, 38% became more myopic by at least 1.00 D. The 5-year manifest refraction was 0.50 D to 1.50 D more myopic than the cycloplegic refraction for 37% of eyes.
CONCLUSIONS: We recommend using two or more Snellen lines as the standard for a meaningful change in spectacle-corrected visual acuity in operated eyes, and 1.00 D as a meaningful cutoff for stability of refraction. The wearing of contact lenses can confound the results of stability studies. The difference between the cycloplegic and manifest refractions suggests that the cycloplegic refraction should be used in planning for refractive surgery.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app