“The hardest part in healthcare is not to treat what does not require treatment”
Speaking about myopia control, it is impossible to neglect the trend occurring among both parents and some ophthalmologists who support the following statement: “Myopia is merely an imperfection of the optical system, an evolutionary adaptation mechanism that does not require the active intervention of specialists and the concerns of parents”
It is important to note that it is only partly true. Myopia can indeed be merely a disorder of the optical system, which will never lead to a disease. However, this is simply one of the possible scenarios of the course of myopia, and there are three scenarios in terms of the risks of concomitant complications: minimal risk, moderate risk and high risk.
If the first scenario is clear enough to both parents and specialists, the other two are not.
From the point of view of medical professionals, a non-intervention strategy implies increased outdoor activity time and optional optical correction of progressive myopia. This argument is usually based on the assumption that the problem of progressive myopia has been historically exaggerated. The advocates of this strategy consider those specialists who are engaged in myopia control as salesmen pursuing mercantile goals. This is where we are starting to walk on a thin ice. In order to keep balance, it is essential that we refer to an impartial and evidence-based scientific research data.
These data indicate that:
- incomplete and inconsistent correction of myopia lead to its progression
- optical strategy methods of myopia control help slow down axial elongation
- no studies exist that proved that an increased outdoor activity was more effective that optical methods of myopia control
- slowing the progression of myopia by only 1 D reduces the risk of myopic maculopathy development (irreversible loss of central vision) by 40%
Summarizing the above, it must be emphasized that “progressive myopia” diagnosis is not a reason for panic. This is a call for a conscious choice between non-intervention and the ability to change something.
useful article
22
