目的：观察配戴角膜塑形镜对于青少年近视患儿正相对调节力(PRA)改变的影响。

方法：回顾性病例分析。分析2016-09/2017-12间在我院视光科门诊初次就诊的青少年近视性屈光不正患儿122例244眼。其中选择角膜塑形镜矫正者63例(塑形镜组)，选择框架眼镜矫正者59例(框架眼镜组)，比较两组患儿治疗前及治疗6mo时双眼PRA的改变情况。

结果：治疗前塑形镜组PRA值-0.83±0.23D，框架眼镜组-0.77±0.24D(t=-1.457，P>0.05)。治疗前塑形镜组眼轴24.84±0.90mm，框架眼镜组24.78±0.86mm(t=0.550，P>0.05)。治疗6mo时塑形镜组PRA值-2.27±0.37D，与治疗前有差异(t=37.070，P<0.001)。治疗6mo时框架眼镜组PRA值-0.83±0.24D，与治疗前无差异(t=1.565，P>0.05)。治疗后塑形镜组PRA优于框架组(t=-25.271，P<0.001)。治疗6mo时塑形镜组眼轴24.86±0.91mm，与治疗前24.84±0.90mm有差异(t=-2.453，P<0.05)。治疗6mo时框架眼镜组眼轴24.97±0.86mm，与治疗前24.78±0.86mm有差异(t=39.135，P<0.001)。治疗6mo时两组眼轴无差异(t=-0.932，P>0.05)。

结论：青少年近视患儿配戴塑形镜相比配戴框架眼镜在治疗6mo时可明显提高其双眼PRA储备，但两者眼轴改变差异不明显。

METHODS: Retrospective analysis of cases. All 122 cases(244 eyes)of juvenile with myopic from September 2016 to December 2017 in our hospital were analyzed. 63 cases were corrected by orthokeratology lens and 59 cases were corrected by glasses. data of the binocular positive relative accommodation before treatment and 6mo after treatment were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS:Before treatment, the average PRA value of the orthokeratology group(-0.83±0.23)D and the average PRA value of the glasses group(-0.77±0.24)D were no significant difference(t= -1.457, P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups before treatment in eye axis(orthokeratology group 24.84±0.90mm, glasses group 24.78±0.86mm, t=0.550, P>0.05). PRA in the orthokeratology group -2.27±0.37D was significantly higher than that in the pre-treatment group -0.83±0.23D(t=37.070, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in PRA -0.83±0.24D at the end of 6mo compared with that before treatment -0.77±0.24D,(t=1.565, P>0.05). After treatment, the PRA of orthokeratology group was better than that of glasses group, and the difference was statistically significant(t=-25.271, P<0.001). The eye axis of the orthokeratology group 24.86 ±0.91mm was significantly higher than that of the control group 24.84±0.90mm(t=-2.453, P<0.05)at the end of 6mo. The eye axis of the glasses group 24.97±0.86mm was significantly different from that before treatment 24.78±0.86mm(t=39.135, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the eye axis between the orthokeratology group and the glasses group after 6mo(t=-0.932,P>0.05).

CONCLUSION: The corrected visual acuity of juvenile myopia by orthokeratology was significantly higher than that by using glasses 6mo after treatment, but there was no significant difference between the two groups in eye axis during 6mo.