Research supports Ortho-K as a way to slow myopia in children. But a study percentage is not a promise for one child. To understand a result, look at who was studied, how groups were chosen and what was measured.
LORIC and ROMIO are two often-cited studies. They helped test whether overnight lenses could do more than clear daytime blur.
The Foundation: LORIC and ROMIO Studies
Both studies tracked axial length: the eye's front-to-back length. Growth in this measure helps show myopia progression. It is different from the strength of a glasses prescription.
The LORIC Study (2005): A Pioneering Pilot
LORIC was an early two-year pilot study. It compared children wearing Ortho-K with a group wearing standard glasses. The Ortho-K group had less average eye growth.
Its design matters. This was not a randomized trial in which children were assigned to groups by chance. It helped frame later research but could not settle every question. Original LORIC publication.
The ROMIO Study (2012): Randomized and Controlled
ROMIO enrolled 102 children aged 6–10 and assigned them to Ortho-K or standard single-vision glasses for two years. Among those who completed the study, average eye growth was 0.36 mm with Ortho-K and 0.63 mm with glasses.
That is a 43% relative difference in the study. It does not mean that every child's growth slowed by 43%, or that 43% of children were cured. Myopia was not reversed. Original ROMIO publication.
The absolute difference was 0.27 mm over two years: 0.63 minus 0.36. Dividing 0.27 by 0.63 gives the roughly 43% relative difference. Showing both numbers helps readers see what the percentage means.
Assignment by chance helps make groups more comparable at the start. But not all enrolled children finished. The reported results and reasons for leaving still matter. A trial average is evidence for a discussion, not a forecast for a child in the exam room.
Expanding the Evidence: SMART and TO-SEE
Later studies looked at other groups, settings and lens designs. Check how each study was done and what it measured. That tells you more than a list of headline percentages.
The SMART Study: Three-Year Prescription Results
The 2015 SMART report followed children aged 8–14 at enrollment for three years. Families chose Ortho-K or daily-wear soft lenses; assignment was not random. It measured prescription change after a break from Ortho-K to let the cornea return to a stable state.
The report found less average change in lens power with Ortho-K. About a third of each group dropped out. This adds research from a different setting. It did not measure eye length, so we cannot rank that result against ROMIO. Original SMART report.
The TO-SEE Study (2013): Tackling Astigmatism
TO-SEE studied children with moderate-to-high astigmatism, a focusing problem linked to eye shape. It used a toric Ortho-K design. “Toric” means the lens is shaped to fit changes across the cornea, the clear front of the eye. Eighty children joined the two-year study. They were not placed in groups by chance.
Among completers, average eye growth was 0.31 mm with toric Ortho-K and 0.64 mm in controls. This supports discussion of selected fits. It does not prove that every child with astigmatism can use Ortho-K. Original TO-SEE publication.
What Does This All Mean for your child?
The evidence supports offering Ortho-K as one option, after an exam. It does not make it right for almost everyone.
Ask these questions:
- How similar is my child to the children studied?
- What result will you measure, and how often?
- What are the risks and care needs?
- What would make you change the plan?
The candidacy check can help start the discussion. It cannot replace eye measurements or confirm a fit.
Ortho-K Clinical Studies: A Comparison
| Study | Design | Main point |
|---|---|---|
| LORIC (2005) | Two-year pilot with comparison group | Early evidence helped shape later trials. |
| ROMIO (2012) | Two-year randomized trial | 0.36 mm versus 0.63 mm average growth among completers. |
| TO-SEE (2013) | Two-year nonrandomized trial | 0.31 mm versus 0.64 mm average growth among completers. |
The groups, ages, prescriptions and methods differ. These are Ortho-K studies, not sleepSEE-specific trials or a head-to-head ranking of lens designs.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why not just use the biggest percentage?
It may come from a different group or method. An absolute change, study design and uncertainty matter as well as the percentage.
Does clear vision prove slower growth?
No. Vision after lens removal and eye growth are separate outcomes. Keep follow-up even when daytime vision seems good.
Does the research remove lens risks?
No. Overnight lenses still have risks, including infection. Your family needs a safe care routine and prompt help for symptoms.
Dr. James Singletary, OD, FIAOMC
Dr. James Singletary is a licensed eye doctor. His main field is Ortho-K. He helps people see clearly without surgery. He also cares for children to help slow myopia, or nearsightedness. He created the sleepSEE Ortho-K program.
Medical Disclaimer
This article helps you learn about eye care. It is not personal medical advice, a diagnosis or a treatment plan. Ask a qualified eye doctor about your eyes and care. Do not use this page in place of that advice.
