Myopia: Causes, Treatment, Control & Retinal Risks in Children and Adults
Quick answer: What is myopia? Myopia (short-sightedness) is a refractive error in which distant objects look blurred because light focuses in front of the retina, usually because the eye is longer than average. In children, myopia can progress as the eye grows. Myopia management may slow this progression, while glasses, contact lenses and refractive surgery correct vision but do not shorten an elongated eye. Adults with high myopia also need to understand the possible retinal risks associated with a longer eye.
When a child comes back from a school screening with a slip that says "minus one, both eyes," most families hear one thing: glasses. Order the frames, change them when the number changes, and get on with life.
That reading is understandable, and it is incomplete. A minus number is not a property of the lens in front of the eye. It is a measurement of the eye itself, and of something the eye is doing. Understanding what it is doing changes what you do about it, both at eight years old and at forty-eight.
This article is written for two readers at once: the parent of a child whose power keeps climbing, and the adult who has carried minus six since college and has never been told what that means for the back of the eye.
What Is Myopia, Really? Understanding Why the Eye Becomes Longer
In a well-proportioned eye, light entering through the cornea and lens comes to a sharp focus exactly on the retina. In myopia, it focuses slightly in front of the retina, so distant objects look blurred while near objects stay clear.
The usual reason is not that the focusing power is too strong. It is that the eyeball has grown too long. This measurement is called axial length, and in myopia it increases faster and for longer than it should. That is why myopia behaves like a condition rather than a fixed characteristic: it progresses, it progresses fastest in childhood, and the structures inside a lengthening eye are being stretched while it happens.
Hold onto that single idea, because everything else in this article follows from it. A spectacle lens, a contact lens and a laser procedure all correct where the light lands. None of them shortens the eye. The length is what determines the risk to the retina, and the length is what we are actually trying to influence when we treat a child.
For scale: myopia affected about a quarter of the world's population in 2010, was projected to reach roughly a third by 2020, and is projected to affect about 4.8 billion people, close to half the world, by 2050, with nearly a billion in the high myopia range.
Why Does Myopia Happen? Family History, Near Work and Screen Time
Three factors dominate, and only two of them can be changed.
Family history: Myopia runs strongly in families. Where one or both parents are myopic, and particularly where a parent carries a high power of around minus six or more, a child's risk is substantially higher. In the North India Myopia Study, conducted in nearly 10,000 Delhi schoolchildren, spectacle use by a parent or sibling was one of the strongest associations found. This part is not anyone's fault and cannot be undone. What it should do is lower the threshold for getting a child examined early, rather than waiting for complaints.
Near work and screens: An eye that spends most of its waking hours focused at 25 centimetres appears to adapt to that distance, and the adaptation shows up as increasing minus power. The Delhi study found higher myopia in children who studied or read more than five hours a day, who watched more than two hours of television a day, and who played computer, video or mobile games. When the same cohort was re-examined a year later, hours of reading and writing and the use of computers and video games were both independently associated with faster progression.
The dose matters, and it has been quantified. A 2025 systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis in JAMA Network Open pooled 45 studies and 335,524 participants. Each additional hour of daily screen time was associated with 21% higher odds of myopia. The curve was S-shaped: risk climbed steeply between one and four hours a day, from an odds ratio of 1.05 at one hour to 1.97 at four hours, then flattened. Below about an hour a day the association disappeared. The authors were careful to rate the certainty of this evidence as low, because the studies varied enormously, so treat it as a strong signal rather than a precise law.
Not enough time outdoors. This is the most actionable finding in the entire field, and the most consistently ignored. In the Delhi cohort, only 5% of myopic children played outdoors for more than two hours a day, against 47.4% of children without myopia. That is not a subtle difference.
And unlike most of what is written about myopia, this has been tested properly rather than merely observed. The Guangzhou Outdoor Activity Longitudinal Trial randomised 1,903 six-year-olds across 12 schools. Intervention schools simply added one 40-minute outdoor class to each school day. After three years, new myopia had developed in 30.4% of the intervention group against 39.5% of controls — an absolute reduction of 9.1 percentage points, or about 23% fewer children becoming myopic, from one extra outdoor period a day. A 2026 meta-analysis of 31 studies and 380,215 children found the protective association plateauing at around two hours a day, which the authors proposed as a pragmatic daily benchmark.
One correction worth making, because it circulates widely: the benefit of being outdoors does not appear to come from vitamin D. A Mendelian randomisation study using genetic variants that determine vitamin D levels found no causal effect of vitamin D on myopia, with confidence intervals tight enough to call the true effect indistinguishable from zero, and concluded that earlier associations were confounded by time spent outdoors. A separate multicountry European study found that ultraviolet B exposure was protective while serum vitamin D showed no clear association. The operative ingredient appears to be bright light itself, acting through retinal dopamine, not the vitamin the light happens to produce. The practical advice is identical — send children outside — but the reason matters, because it means a vitamin D supplement is not a substitute for daylight.
How Can Parents Reduce Myopia Risk? What You Can Actually Do for Your Child
These are the measures with evidence behind them, in rough order of strength.
Two hours outdoors a day, as a target. Not two hours of sport. Any outdoor time counts, including walking to the shops and sitting in a park. School recess outdoors counts, and in trials it was enough on its own to matter.
Treat screen time as a dose. Below about an hour a day of discretionary screen use, the association with myopia is not detectable. Between one and four hours it climbs steeply. School and homework are not negotiable; the hours after that are.
A break every 30 minutes. Stop, look at something across the room or out of a window for a few seconds, then continue. This is cheap, undramatic, and the single easiest habit to build.
Larger screens and larger fonts. A child reads a phone at about 20 centimetres and a laptop at about 50. Moving the same task onto a bigger screen with bigger text roughly doubles the working distance without anyone having to be disciplined about it. Prefer the largest screen available for any task that takes more than a few minutes.
Adequate light for near work, and reading at a desk rather than lying down or in a dim room.
Early Signs of Myopia in Children: What Should Parents Watch For?
Children very rarely complain of blurred vision, because they have no reference point for what normal looks like. They adapt instead, and the adaptations are what parents can spot:
Holding books, tablets or phones unusually close to the face
Difficulty reading the classroom board, or asking to be moved to a front row
Sitting very close to the television
Screwing up the eyes or tilting the head to look at something far away
Not being able to read bus numbers, signboards or scoreboards that others can
Falling behind in class for no apparent reason, or losing interest in outdoor sport
Headaches or eye rubbing after school
Any of these deserves a proper refraction, and in a child that means a dilated examination so the measurement is not distorted by the eye's own focusing effort. Earlier is better, for a reason that is purely arithmetical: progression is fastest in the youngest children, so the earlier a progressing eye is identified, the more of that progression there is left to prevent.
Do Glasses Make Myopia Worse?
There is a persistent belief that wearing glasses weakens the eyes, that the power will climb because the child started wearing them, or that a child made to wear glasses at seven will be dependent on them forever. We see the consequences of this belief regularly: a child with a real and correctable power, going through school without wearing the glasses that are sitting in a drawer at home.
Glasses do not cause myopia and do not accelerate it. The power climbs because the eye is lengthening, and it would lengthen whether or not the child could see the board. What uncorrected myopia does cause is a child who cannot read what is being taught, cannot catch a ball, and is often thought to be inattentive rather than short-sighted.
So if a refraction shows a power, the glasses should be worn as prescribed. The cosmetic question is real and worth taking seriously, and it has answers — contact lenses in older children, and surgery once the eye has stopped changing. Going without correction is not one of them.
Slowing the progression: the two main options
This is where the field has changed substantially in the last decade. Until recently, all we could do was keep updating the prescription. Now there are two well-studied ways of slowing the underlying elongation, and this is the part of the conversation most parents have never had.
Both are measured the same way: not by whether vision improves, but by how much slower the power climbs and, more importantly, how much slower the eye grows. Axial length is the better endpoint of the two, because it is the length that determines lifetime retinal risk.
Option one: Low-dose atropine eye drops
Atropine relaxes the focusing muscle, and at much higher concentrations has been known for decades to slow myopia. The problem was that it also dilated the pupil and paralysed near focus, which no child will tolerate for years. The modern approach uses very dilute concentrations, typically one drop at bedtime.
The evidence deserves to be presented in full, including the parts that complicate it, because this is a treatment given to healthy children for years.
The ATOM studies (Singapore): ATOM1 established that 1% atropine produced a very large effect, around 80% reduction in refractive progression, but with mydriasis and loss of near focus severe enough to make it unusable as a routine treatment. ATOM2 then compared 0.5%, 0.1% and 0.01% over five years, with a washout and retreatment phase. Higher concentrations worked better but rebounded more after stopping. The group that came out best over five years was the one on 0.01%, which also had a negligible side-effect profile. That result is what launched 0.01% into worldwide use.
The LAMP study (Hong Kong) is the most informative trial we have, because it compared three low concentrations head to head in 438 children aged 4 to 12, placebo-controlled in the first year, and followed them for three years with a randomised continuation-versus-washout phase. The effect was clearly concentration-dependent. Over three years of continued treatment, mean progression was −0.73 D with 0.05%, −1.31 D with 0.025% and −1.60 D with 0.01%, and axial elongation was 0.50 mm, 0.74 mm and 0.89 mm respectively. In the first year, 0.01% had only a minimal effect on axial elongation. Rebound after stopping was greater in younger children and smaller at lower concentrations, but modest in absolute terms. The authors concluded that 0.05% was the optimal concentration over three years in Chinese children.
The CHAMP trial tested a preservative-free formulation at 0.01% and 0.02% against placebo in 576 children across 26 sites in North America and Europe, over three years. The 0.02% dose missed its primary endpoint. The 0.01% dose, as a secondary endpoint, slowed progression by 0.24 D and axial elongation by 0.13 mm over three years versus placebo, both statistically significant. Photophobia occurred in 3.5% and allergic conjunctivitis in 3.3%; no serious ocular adverse events occurred in any group.
The PEDIG trial is the result that must be quoted alongside the others. In 187 American children aged 5 to 12, randomised to 0.01% atropine or placebo nightly for two years, there was no difference at all: progression was −0.82 D with atropine against −0.80 D with placebo, and axial elongation 0.44 mm against 0.45 mm. The investigators concluded that they could not support the use of 0.01% atropine for this purpose in US children.
The MOSAIC trial in Dublin, in 250 children, found a small but real benefit: axial elongation reduced by 0.07 mm over two years, with the refractive difference falling just short of significance. The effect was present in white children and in those aged 11 and above, and absent in younger and non-white children.
So what should a parent take from this? Three things. First, low-dose atropine is safe, in the sense that no trial has shown serious ocular harm. Second, the concentration matters, and the evidence for 0.05% in Asian children is considerably stronger than the evidence for 0.01%. Third, it does not work for everyone, and the effect on axial length — the measurement that matters most — is weaker than the effect on spectacle power, particularly at 0.01%. That is why treatment must be monitored with axial length measurement over time rather than by the spectacle number alone, and why it is reasonable to step up the concentration in a child who continues to progress.
Option two: Myopia control spectacle lenses
These look like ordinary glasses. They have a clear central zone that corrects vision normally, surrounded by a honeycomb of hundreds of tiny lenslets that place a deliberately defocused image on the peripheral retina. The peripheral signal appears to be what the eye uses to regulate its own growth, and the lenses exploit it. The two designs with substantial trial evidence are DIMS, Defocus Incorporated Multiple Segments, and HAL, highly aspherical lenslets.
DIMS. The original two-year randomised trial, published in the British Journal of Ophthalmology in 2020, found DIMS lenses slowed myopia progression by 52% and axial elongation by 62% compared with single vision lenses. A third-year extension showed the effect was sustained, and children switched from single vision to DIMS at two years then slowed down too. A six-year follow-up of 90 children, published in Scientific Reports in 2023, found the effect held: children wearing DIMS throughout progressed a total of −0.92 D with 0.60 mm of axial growth over six years, around −0.15 D and 0.10 mm a year, which is close to the physiological growth of a non-myopic eye. There was no rebound when the lenses were stopped, and children who started between 10 and 13 showed almost no progression at all.
HAL. A two-year randomised trial in 170 Chinese children aged 8 to 13, published in JAMA Ophthalmology in 2022, compared highly aspherical lenslets, slightly aspherical lenslets and single vision lenses. Over two years, progression was −0.66 D with HAL against −1.46 D with single vision, a difference of 0.80 D, and axial elongation was 0.34 mm against 0.69 mm, a difference of 0.35 mm. Both differences were highly significant, and there were no severe adverse events. Four-year data presented at ARVO in 2023 reported continued efficacy.
For comparison, contact lenses. The MiSight daily disposable soft lens was tested in 144 children aged 8 to 12 across four countries. Over three years, progression was −0.51 D against −1.24 D in controls, a 59% reduction, with axial elongation 0.30 mm against 0.62 mm, a 52% reduction. 41% of treated eyes showed no clinically meaningful change at all, against 4% of control eyes. Over three years there were no serious ocular adverse events and no cases of microbial keratitis. Seven-year follow-up showed no rebound after stopping. Orthokeratology, where a rigid lens is worn overnight to reshape the cornea, has comparable efficacy and is a reasonable option in motivated families, with the caveat that it demands scrupulous hygiene.
Putting the two together
Low-dose atropine | Myopia control spectacle lenses | |
How it is used | One drop at bedtime, every night, for years | Worn like ordinary glasses, all waking hours |
Typical effect on axial growth | Concentration-dependent. Substantial at 0.05%, modest to absent at 0.01% depending on the population | Around 50 to 62% slowing in trials, sustained to six years for DIMS |
Main advantages | Inexpensive; nothing for the child to wear or look after; works alongside any correction | No drops; nothing systemic; the child is wearing glasses anyway; no rebound demonstrated |
Main drawbacks | Photophobia in a small proportion; response varies; needs nightly compliance for years; optimal concentration still debated | Higher cost; must be worn consistently to work; needs correct fitting and centration |
Rebound on stopping | Yes, greater in younger children and at higher concentrations | Not demonstrated for DIMS at six years or MiSight at seven |
In practice these are often combined, and combination is under active study. Which to start depends on the child's age, how fast the eye is actually growing, whether the family can manage nightly drops, and cost. What should not vary is the monitoring: a child on any myopia control treatment needs axial length measured at intervals, so that a treatment that is not working can be changed rather than continued out of habit.
The other half of myopia: what the stretching does to the retina
Everything above concerns childhood, when the eye is still growing. This section concerns everyone with myopia, and it matters most for adults with higher powers. It is also the part that is almost never discussed at the optical counter.
The retina is a thin, delicate layer of neural tissue lining the inside of the eye. It did not evolve to be stretched. When the eyeball elongates, the retina is pulled thinner, and thinner tissue tears and degenerates more easily. This produces two separate problems: one at the periphery, which threatens the whole retina, and one at the centre, which threatens reading vision.
The periphery: thinning, lattice, tears and detachment
Towards the front edge of the retina, stretching produces areas of focal thinning. The most recognisable pattern is lattice degeneration: oval patches of thinned retina, often crossed by fine white lines that give them their name. Lattice is found in roughly 6 to 8% of the general population and in around a third of myopic eyes.
Thinned retina matters because it tears. And a tear matters because the vitreous gel filling the eye is in contact with the retina. Once there is a full-thickness break, fluid can pass through it and track underneath, lifting the retina off the wall of the eye. That is rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, and it is a surgical emergency: the longer the central retina stays detached, the less vision returns even after a technically perfect operation.
Retinal detachment is a real and substantially elevated risk in myopia, not a theoretical one. The Eye Disease Case-Control Study found that a power between minus one and minus three carried roughly a four-fold increase in risk compared with eyes needing no correction, and a power beyond minus three roughly a ten-fold increase. For high myopia beyond about minus five, lifetime risk has been estimated at around twenty times that of an eye with no refractive error. In a Scottish series of people under 50 presenting with detachment in an eye that had never had surgery, 82.1% were myopic.
The warning symptoms are specific and worth memorising:
New floaters — specks, threads, cobwebs or a sudden swarm drifting across the vision
Flashes of light, usually at the edge of vision, often more obvious in the dark or on eye movement
A shadow or curtain coming in from one side, or a patch of vision that has gone missing
Floaters and flashes together usually mean the vitreous gel has separated from the retina. In most eyes that is harmless. In a myopic eye it is the moment at which a tear is most likely to be created, which is why anyone with myopia who develops new flashes or floaters should have a dilated peripheral retinal examination promptly, with the retina examined right out to its edge. This is a different and more thorough examination than a refraction, and it is the single most useful thing an adult with myopia can do for their own eyes.
If the examination finds a genuine tear or break, it is sealed with laser, which walls the break off and prevents fluid tracking under the retina. This is a short outpatient procedure and it is highly effective at preventing a detachment that would otherwise need surgery.
Lattice degeneration itself calls for judgement rather than reflex. Found incidentally in an eye with no symptoms, the long-term risk of detachment from lattice alone is low, of the order of 0.5 to 0.7%, and routine prophylactic laser to all lattice is not generally advocated. The calculus changes when there are symptoms, when there is a tear within or at the edge of the lattice, when the fellow eye has already detached, or where the degree of myopia and the extent of the lesions put the eye at particular risk. In those situations laser is appropriate and we do recommend it. The honest summary is that symptoms, not the mere presence of lattice, are what should bring someone in and what usually determine whether laser is advised.
The centre: myopic macular degeneration and myopic CNV
The same stretching thins the retina and the choroid at the centre of vision. Early on this appears as a tessellated fundus, where the large choroidal vessels become visible through a thinned retina. With progression it becomes diffuse chorioretinal atrophy, then patchy atrophy, then atrophy involving the macula itself. This progression is graded by the META-PM classification, from category 0 to category 4, and when it reaches the stage of diffuse atrophy or beyond the eye is described as having pathologic myopia.
Symptoms at this stage are gradual: blurring of central vision, distortion of straight lines, difficulty reading small print even with the correct glasses. There is no treatment that restores retina that has already atrophied, which is the whole argument for slowing elongation in childhood.
There is a second, more abrupt event. Thinning and mechanical stress can crack Bruch's membrane, the layer separating retina from choroid, producing linear breaks called lacquer cracks. Through such a break, new blood vessels can grow forward from the choroid into the retina. This is myopic choroidal neovascular membrane, or myopic CNV, and it is the commonest cause of sudden central vision loss in a highly myopic eye.
The symptom to recognise is a constant black or grey patch at the centre of vision — a central scotoma — and it is quite different from a floater. A floater drifts when the eye moves and shifts position. A scotoma sits still, stays exactly in the middle of wherever you look, and does not move when the eye moves. That distinction is worth teaching, because the two symptoms point to opposite ends of the retina and to different urgencies. Sudden distortion of straight lines belongs in the same category.
Diagnosis is made on OCT, which shows the membrane and the associated fluid in cross-section, and is confirmed and characterised on OCT angiography, which maps the abnormal vessel network itself without any dye injection. OCT angiography is available on site at Claritas Eye & Retina Institute, and in myopic eyes it is particularly useful, because distinguishing an active neovascular membrane from a patch of atrophy on examination alone is genuinely difficult, and the two require completely different management.
Treatment is an intravitreal anti-VEGF injection, which blocks the signal driving the new vessels so that they regress and stop leaking. The results are good, and the treatment burden is far lower than in age-related macular degeneration. In the RADIANCE trial, 277 people with myopic CNV treated with ranibizumab gained a mean of 14.4 letters of vision at twelve months with a mean of only 3.5 injections across the year, against 9.3 letters with photodynamic therapy. Most eyes need a small number of injections rather than an indefinite course. Early treatment matters: a membrane treated when it is small and recent does far better than one treated after it has scarred.
Taking the glasses off
For most people this is the question they actually came to ask, and the honest answer depends almost entirely on age.
For children and teenagers, the eye is still changing, so surgery is not an option. Contact lenses are, and they are safe in children when hygiene is taught properly. Daily disposable soft lenses avoid the storage and cleaning problems altogether, and in the MiSight trial, three years of daily lens wear in children aged 8 to 12 produced no serious ocular adverse events and no microbial keratitis. A child who dislikes glasses can wear contact lenses for sport, for school, or all day, and if a myopia control design is chosen the lens does two jobs at once.
Surgery waits for stability: The conventional threshold is 18 years and a power that has not changed meaningfully for at least a year, and the reason is simply that operating on a moving target produces a result that drifts. The data support the caution: around 77% of myopic young adults are stable by age 18 and about 90% by 21, which means roughly one in ten is still progressing at 21. Progression into the twenties is commoner in people doing intensive near work, which describes a good many students. So the criterion is not a birthday, it is a stable refraction documented over time.
Once the eye is stable, the options divide into two families. There is more detail on our refractive surgery page, but in outline:
Laser procedures reshape the cornea, and come in two forms. In flap-based procedures such as femtosecond LASIK, a thin hinged flap is created, tissue beneath it is reshaped with an excimer laser, and the flap is replaced. Recovery is quick and the results are excellent. In lenticule extraction procedures such as SMILE and the newer SILK, no flap is made: a femtosecond laser outlines a thin disc of tissue within the cornea and it is withdrawn through a small incision of a few millimetres. Without a flap there is nothing that can be displaced by trauma later, fewer corneal nerves are cut so dry eye tends to be less of a problem, and more of the cornea's structural strength is preserved. All of these require a cornea thick enough to work with, and all require the corneal shape to be normal — keratoconus rules them out.
ICL, the implantable collamer lens, takes a different approach. Instead of removing corneal tissue, a very thin lens is placed inside the eye, in front of the natural lens, so the eye's own focusing structures are left intact. This is the better choice in two situations in particular: very high powers, beyond what can be safely taken off the cornea, and corneas too thin for a laser procedure. It has a further advantage that patients consistently value once they understand it: it is reversible. The lens can be removed or exchanged, which is not true of tissue that has been ablated. The FDA extended the approved age range for the EVO ICL to 21 to 60 years in February 2026, citing three-year data on 629 eyes with a safety index of 1.25 and anterior subcapsular cataract in 0.16%.
Refractive lens exchange removes the eye's natural lens and replaces it with an artificial intraocular lens, as in cataract surgery. In myopia this is the least preferred of the options and is reserved mainly for people around 45 and above, where the natural lens is losing its focusing ability anyway and early lens changes may already be present. In that setting it solves distance and near vision together, and there is more on lens choices on our IOL page. The reason for caution in younger myopic eyes is specific and relevant to everything above: removing the natural lens alters the vitreous, and in highly myopic eyes that has been associated with an increased rate of retinal detachment afterwards, with older series reporting figures in the low single-digit percentages and higher. Modern technique has almost certainly improved this, but in an eye that already carries a twenty-fold baseline risk, it is not a trade to make casually.
Myopia consultation in Delhi
For families looking for myopia treatment in Delhi, the next step is an individual eye assessment rather than choosing a treatment from the spectacle number alone. In children, assessment may include cycloplegic refraction and monitoring of axial length to understand whether myopia is progressing. Adults with high myopia may need a dilated retinal examination and advice about the options for vision correction. Dr. Mayank Bansal consults at Claritas Eye & Retina Institute in Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. A consultation can help determine whether the priority is childhood myopia control, assessment of high-myopia retinal changes or suitability for refractive surgery.
Book a consultation with Dr. Mayank Bansal in Delhi.
The one thing to carry away
Refractive surgery is an excellent operation and we are glad to do it. What it does is move the point of focus onto the retina. What it does not do is shorten the eye. An eye that was minus nine before surgery has the retina of an eye that is minus nine on the day after surgery, and for the rest of its life. The International Myopia Institute makes this point explicitly: corneal refractive surgery does not prevent ongoing axial elongation.
So the single most important consequence of understanding myopia as a length rather than a number is this: if you have had your glasses removed, you still need your retina examined. Not because anything went wrong with the surgery, but because the risk was never in the glasses.
To summarise the whole article in four lines:
In a growing child, get it measured early, wear the correction, get outdoors for two hours a day, and ask about atropine and myopia control lenses — the elongation you prevent now is risk removed for life.
Keep screens at arm's length, on the biggest screen available, with a break every half hour.
At any age, new flashes, new floaters, or a shadow at the edge of vision means a dilated retinal examination within days. A constant black patch in the centre means the same, urgently.
If you want to be rid of glasses, that is a reasonable thing to want and there are good ways to achieve it. Come and discuss which one suits your eyes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Will wearing glasses make my child's power increase faster?
No. The power increases because the eyeball is lengthening, and it lengthens whether or not the child is wearing glasses. Uncorrected myopia does not slow anything down; it simply means a child who cannot see the board. Wear the correction as prescribed.
At what age should a child's eyes first be checked?
Any child showing the signs described above should be examined at once, at any age. Where a parent has high myopia, examination should be routine rather than symptom-driven, because risk is substantially higher and progression is fastest in the youngest children. A child's refraction should be done after dilating drops, otherwise the eye's own focusing effort distorts the measurement.
Do atropine drops actually work?
They slow progression, with important qualifications. The effect depends on concentration: in the LAMP study, three years of 0.05% atropine gave −0.73 D of progression against −1.60 D with 0.01%. The CHAMP trial found 0.01% slowed progression by 0.24 D and axial elongation by 0.13 mm over three years versus placebo, but a US trial in 187 children found no benefit from 0.01% at all, and an Irish trial found a benefit only in older and white children. So atropine is worth using, is safe, and needs to be monitored with axial length measurement rather than assumed to be working.
Are atropine drops safe for years of use?
At these low concentrations, no trial has shown serious ocular harm. In CHAMP, with 573 children in the safety set, there were no serious ocular adverse events; photophobia occurred in 3.5% and allergic conjunctivitis in 3.3%. Some light sensitivity is the commonest complaint. The drops should be prescribed and monitored by an ophthalmologist, not bought on a recommendation.
How much do myopia control glasses help, and are they worth the cost?
In the original DIMS trial they slowed progression by 52% and axial elongation by 62% over two years, and a six-year follow-up found the effect sustained with no rebound after stopping. HAL lenses slowed progression by 0.80 D and axial elongation by 0.35 mm over two years against ordinary lenses. They cost more than standard spectacles, and they only work if they are worn nearly all the time, since a lens in a bag does nothing. For a child who is progressing quickly and who has to wear glasses regardless, most parents find the arithmetic favourable.
Can contact lenses be used in children? Is that safe?
Yes, with hygiene taught properly, and daily disposables remove most of the risk by eliminating storage and cleaning. In the three-year MiSight trial in children aged 8 to 12 there were no serious ocular adverse events and no cases of microbial keratitis. Contact lenses are often the right answer for a child who will not wear glasses, and a myopia control design treats and corrects at the same time.
Why do I need a retina check if my only problem is a spectacle power?
Because the power is a sign that the eye is longer than it should be, and a longer eye has a thinner, more fragile retina. A power between minus one and minus three carries roughly four times the risk of retinal detachment, and beyond minus three roughly ten times. A routine refraction does not look at the peripheral retina. A dilated retinal examination does, and in a myopic eye it should be part of the picture rather than an afterthought.
I keep seeing floaters. Should I worry?
Long-standing, unchanged floaters are usually harmless. New floaters, a sudden increase in them, flashes of light, or a shadow coming in from the side are different, and in a myopic eye they should be assessed with a dilated peripheral examination within days. They often mean the vitreous gel has separated from the retina, which is the moment a tear is most likely to form. A tear found early is sealed with laser in a few minutes. A detachment needs an operation.
What is the difference between a floater and a black spot in the centre?
A floater moves. It drifts across the vision and changes position when the eye moves, because it is a shadow cast by something suspended in the gel. A central black or grey patch that stays exactly in the middle of wherever you look, and does not move with the eye, is a central scotoma, and in a highly myopic eye it may indicate a myopic choroidal neovascular membrane. That needs assessment urgently, with OCT and OCT angiography, because it is treatable and treats better when it is caught early.
Should lattice degeneration always be lasered?
No. Lattice found incidentally in an eye with no symptoms carries a low long-term risk of detachment, around 0.5 to 0.7%, and treating all lattice as a matter of routine is not supported. Laser is clearly indicated when there is an actual retinal tear or break, and is reasonable when there are symptoms such as new flashes or floaters, when the other eye has already had a detachment, or where the extent of thinning and the degree of myopia make the eye particularly vulnerable. It is a judgement made after examining the retina, not a decision that can be made from the spectacle power.
When can I have my glasses removed, and which procedure is best for me?
Not before 18, and not until your power has been stable for at least a year — about one in ten people is still progressing at 21. Which procedure suits you depends on your power, your corneal thickness and shape, your tear film and your age. Flap-based LASIK and flapless lenticule procedures such as SMILE and SILK reshape the cornea and suit low to moderate powers with adequate corneal thickness. ICL places a lens inside the eye and is preferred for very high powers or thin corneas, and has the advantage of being reversible. Refractive lens exchange is reserved mainly for people around 45 and above. The decision is made on measurements, not preference, and we will tell you if you are not a candidate for the procedure you came in asking for.
If I have laser or ICL surgery, is my myopia cured?
Your vision is corrected; your eye is still long. Surgery changes where light focuses, not the size of the eyeball, so the retinal risks of myopia continue exactly as before. The International Myopia Institute notes that corneal refractive surgery does not prevent ongoing axial elongation. Continue to have a dilated retinal examination periodically after surgery, and treat new flashes, floaters or a shadow in the vision as urgently as you would have before.
Is high myopia the same as pathologic myopia?
No, and the distinction is reassuring. High myopia usually means a power of minus six or worse, or an axial length beyond about 26 mm. Pathologic myopia means a highly myopic eye that has actually developed structural damage: a posterior staphyloma, myopic maculopathy at the stage of diffuse atrophy or beyond, or traction at the macula. Many highly myopic eyes remain structurally healthy for life. Whether an eye has crossed from one to the other is answered by examination and imaging, not by the number on the prescription.
Does my child need to avoid screens completely?
No, and that advice fails because nobody follows it. Think of screen time as a dose. Below about an hour a day of discretionary use the association with myopia is not measurable; between one and four hours it climbs steeply, with each extra hour carrying around 21% higher odds. School and homework are not the target. The after-school hours are, along with the easy structural fixes: the largest screen available, larger fonts, a greater working distance, and a break every 30 minutes.
About the author
Dr Mayank Bansal is a vitreoretinal surgeon and Director of Claritas Eye & Retina Institute, New Delhi, and Senior Consultant in Vitreo-Retinal Surgery at Fortis Memorial Research Institute. He trained at AIIMS, holds FRCS (Glasgow) and FACS (USA), and completed a fellowship at UCLA's Stein Eye Institute. He has performed over 20,000 retina and cataract surgeries, and is a PhD scholar at CSIR-Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology.
References
Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(5):1036-1042. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.006.
Saxena R, Vashist P, Tandon R, et al. Prevalence of myopia and its risk factors in urban school children in Delhi: the North India Myopia Study (NIM Study). PLoS One. 2015;10(2). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117349.
Saxena R, Vashist P, Tandon R, et al. Incidence and progression of myopia and associated factors in urban school children in Delhi: the North India Myopia Study (NIM Study). PLoS One. 2017;12(12). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189774.
Ha A, Lee YJ, Lee M, Shim SR, Kim YK. Digital screen time and myopia: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(2). doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.60026.
He M, Xiang F, Zeng Y, et al. Effect of time spent outdoors at school on the development of myopia among children in China: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(11):1142-1148. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.10803.
Dai J, Wang J, Bao YH, Zhang Y. Exposure-response association between outdoor activity time and myopia risk in Chinese children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Glob Health. 2026;16:04122. doi:10.7189/jogh.16.04122.
Chua WH, Balakrishnan V, Chan YH, et al. Atropine for the treatment of childhood myopia (ATOM1). Ophthalmology. 2006;113(12):2285-2291.
Chia A, Lu QS, Tan D. Five-year clinical trial on atropine for the treatment of myopia 2 (ATOM2): myopia control with atropine 0.01% eyedrops. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(2):391-399. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.07.004.
Yam JC, Jiang Y, Tang SM, et al. Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP) study: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% atropine eye drops in myopia control. Ophthalmology. 2019;126(1):113-124. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.05.029.
Yam JC, Zhang XJ, Zhang Y, et al. Three-year clinical trial of Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP) study: continued versus washout: phase 3 report. Ophthalmology. 2022;129(3):308-321. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.10.002.
Zadnik K, Schulman E, Flitcroft I, et al. Efficacy and safety of 0.01% and 0.02% atropine for the treatment of pediatric myopia progression over 3 years: a randomized clinical trial (CHAMP). JAMA Ophthalmol. 2023;141(10):990-999. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2023.2097.
Repka MX, Weise KK, Chandler DL, et al. Low-dose 0.01% atropine eye drops vs placebo for myopia control: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2023;141(8):756-765. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2023.2855.
Lam CSY, Tang WC, Tse DY, et al. Defocus Incorporated Multiple Segments (DIMS) spectacle lenses slow myopia progression: a 2-year randomised clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104(3):363-368. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-313739.
Lam CSY, Tang WC, Zhang HY, et al. Long-term myopia control effect and safety in children wearing DIMS spectacle lenses for 6 years. Sci Rep. 2023;13:5475. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-32700-7.
Bao J, Huang Y, Li X, et al. Spectacle lenses with aspherical lenslets for myopia control vs single-vision spectacle lenses: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2022;140(5):472-478. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2022.0401.
Chamberlain P, Peixoto-de-Matos SC, Logan NS, et al. A 3-year randomized clinical trial of MiSight lenses for myopia control. Optom Vis Sci. 2019;96(8):556-567. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001410.
The Eye Disease Case-Control Study Group. Risk factors for idiopathic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Am J Epidemiol. 1993;137(7):749-757.
Flaxel CJ, Adelman RA, Bailey ST, et al. Posterior vitreous detachment, retinal breaks, and lattice degeneration Preferred Practice Pattern®. Ophthalmology. 2020;127(1). doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.09.027.
Ohno-Matsui K, Kawasaki R, Jonas JB, et al. International photographic classification and grading system for myopic maculopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;159(5):877-883.e7. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2015.01.022.
Ohno-Matsui K, Lai TYY, Lai CC, Cheung CMG. Updates of pathologic myopia. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2016;52:156-187. doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2015.12.001.
Wolf S, Balciuniene VJ, Laganovska G, et al. RADIANCE: a randomized controlled study of ranibizumab in patients with choroidal neovascularization secondary to pathologic myopia. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(3):682-692.e2. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.10.023.
Bullimore MA, Lee SS, Schmid KL, et al. IMI—onset and progression of myopia in young adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2023;64(6):2. doi:10.1167/iovs.64.6.2.
Comments