Binocular and accommodative function in the controlled randomized clinical trial MiSight® Assessment Study Spain (MASS)

Ruiz-Pomeda, Alicia; Pérez-Sánchez, Belén; Cañadas, Pilar; Garrido, F. Prieto; Gutiérrez-Ortega, Ramón; Villa-Collar, César

doi:10.1007/s00417-018-4115-5

Cited by 30 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to the outcomes of the present study, Ruiz‐Pomeda et al 27 did not find significant differences in stereopsis between patients fitted with DF design contact lenses and SV spectacle‐corrected subjects. They observed poorer stereopsis than was recorded in the present study (30.24 ± 12.09 and 38.18 ± 31.77 s of arc, for DF contact lenses and SV spectacles, respectively).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…However, controversy exists in the literature since other investigations found statistically significant differences between the DF design and best spectacle correction 12 or a monofocal contact lens. 26 Similar to the outcomes of the present study, Ruiz-Pomeda et al 27 did not find significant differences in stereopsis between patients fitted with DF design contact lenses and SV spectacle-corrected subjects. They observed poorer stereopsis than was recorded in the present study (30.24 AE 12.09 and 38.18 AE 31.77 s of arc, for DF contact lenses and SV spectacles, respectively).…”

Section: Measurementsupporting

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of short‐term light disturbance, optical and visual performance outcomes between a myopia control contact lens and a single‐vision contact lens

García‐Marqués

Macedo-de-Araújo

Cerviño

et al. 2020

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Measurementsupporting

confidence: 89%

Comparison of short‐term light disturbance, optical and visual performance outcomes between a myopia control contact lens and a single‐vision contact lens

García‐Marqués

Macedo-de-Araújo

Cerviño

et al. 2020

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this effect decreased over the follow-up time and presented a significant binocular attenuation effect [45]. • MiSight CLs do not change the binocular and accommodative function in children wearing dual focus CLs [46].…”

Section: Reproduced With Permission)mentioning

confidence: 95%

Slowing the Progression of Myopia in Children with the MiSight Contact Lens: A Narrative Review of the Evidence

Ruiz-Pomeda

Villa-Collar

2020

Ophthalmol Ther

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Myopia has become a major public health problem in the world due to the increase in its prevalence in the past few decades and due to sight-threatening pathologies associated with high myopia such as cataracts, glaucoma and especially myopic maculopathy. This article is a narrative review of the evidence that currently exists on a contact lenses (CLs) specifically designed to correct myopia and to slow its progression. To contextualise the topic we discuss the different classifications and definitions that have been used for myopia, the current burden of being myopic, and current treatment options to prevent and control its progression. There is evidence that exposure to sunlight reduces the risk of myopia onset and pharmacological treatment with atropine has been shown to be the most effective therapy for controlling its progression, followed by optical interventions such as CL fitting (orthokeratology or CLs specific for myopia control) designed to decrease retinal peripheral hyperopic defocus that seems to be the theory that suggests that axial elongation is driven by this defocus and explains why the eye continues to grow abnormally after emmetropisation and generates myopia. We will especially focus on MiSight CLs. MiSight is a daily replacement soft contact lens that has been clinically proven and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to control the progression of myopia in children. We analyse the optical design of MiSight CLs, as well as the results of the different efficacy and safety studies that led to the approval of the lens by the FDA. We also expose current knowledge gaps, limitations and future directions.

show abstract

“…This study is part of the MiSight® Assessment Study Spain (MASS), [26][27][28][29] designed to assess the efficacy and subjective acceptance of MiSight® CL versus distance SV spectacles in myopic children over a 24-months period. The protocol was approved by the CEI-R (Regional Research Ethics Committee of the Community of Madrid, Spain) and adheres to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ocular and corneal aberrations changes in controlled randomized clinical trial MiSight® Assessment Study Spain (MASS)

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To compare ocular and corneal inherent aberrations in the naked eyes of randomly selected children fitted with MiSight contact lenses (CL) for myopia control, versus children corrected with single-vision spectacles (control), over a 24-months period. Methods Children aged 8 to 12 years, with myopia (-0.75 to -4.00 D sphere) and astigmatism (< -1.00 D cylinder) were randomly assigned to the lens study group (MiSight) or the control group (single-vision spectacles). The root mean square aberration (RMS) was determined as corneal (RMS_C), corneal high order RMS (HO_RMS_C), corneal low order RMS (LO_RMS_C), ocular (total) RMS (RMS_T), ocular high order RMS (HO_RMS_T), ocular low order RMS (LO_RMS_T), corneal spherical aberration (SA_C) and ocular SA (SA_T) were calculated by aberrometry measures at the baseline, on 12-months and 24-months visits. A 5 mm diameter was defined for the analysis in all visits for all subjects. Only the dominant eye was analyzed. Results Seventy-four subjects completed the clinical trial: 41 subjects from the MiSight group (age: 11.01 ± 1.23 years) and 33 from the single-vision group (age: 10.12 ± 1.38 years). RMS_T significantly changed (0.57 ± 0.20 µm, p = 0.029) after 24-months in the control group. In the MiSight group no significant changes were registered (p > 0.05). The SA_C and SA_T did not reveal significant changes between visits or between groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions Along 2 years, MiSight CL did not induce significant changes in RMS of anterior cornea or total ocular RMS. Contrary, in control group the RMS_T significantly changed as response of greater eye growth and myopia progression. The results obtained in present study allow to predict corneal or total aberration changes, in children, in response of wearing of MiSight lens along the time. Trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01917110.

show abstract

Binocular and accommodative function in the controlled randomized clinical trial MiSight® Assessment Study Spain (MASS)

Abstract: NCT01917110.

Cited by 30 publications

References 48 publications

Comparison of short‐term light disturbance, optical and visual performance outcomes between a myopia control contact lens and a single‐vision contact lens

Comparison of short‐term light disturbance, optical and visual performance outcomes between a myopia control contact lens and a single‐vision contact lens

Slowing the Progression of Myopia in Children with the MiSight Contact Lens: A Narrative Review of the Evidence

Ocular and corneal aberrations changes in controlled randomized clinical trial MiSight® Assessment Study Spain (MASS)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About