CAJ | 학술논문

目的观察黄斑水肿(ME)状态下黄斑中心凹厚度与视功能改变之间的相关性.方法回顾分析应用光相干断层扫描(OCT)联合微视野计(MP-1)检测的ME患者40例42只眼的临床资料.所有患眼均行验光插片,记录最佳矫正视力(BCVA);采用德国Zeiss-HumphreyOCT仪进行OCT检查;意大利Nidek公司MP-1微视野计进行眼底成像、固视检测和视野检查.OCT及MP-1检查均以视盘颢侧2个视盘直径(DD)、下方1/3 DD作为黄斑中心凹进行检查.采用统计学方法对比分析患眼BCVA、中心凹厚度(CMT)、中心10°的光敏感度(MS)以及同视情况.结果不同病因ME患者中,CMT与BCVA之间无明显相关性(r=-0.429,P=0.069);CMT与MS之间无明显相关性(r=-0.433,P=0.058).固视分析中,固视稳定组与同视不稳定组CMT差异有统计学意义(F=3.262,P=0.039),中心注视组与偏心注视组比较,CMT差异有统计学意义(F=3.173,P=0.044).结论 ME患者CMT增加,但与BCVA、MS无相关性;CMT增加,同视稳定性下降.固视位置发生偏移,出现偏心注视.
목적 관찰황반수종(ME)상태하황반중심요후도여시공능개변지간적상관성.방법 회고분석응용광상간단층소묘(OCT)연합미시야계(MP-1)검측적ME환자40례42지안적림상자료.소유환안균행험광삽편,기록최가교정시력(BCVA);채용덕국Zeiss-HumphreyOCT의진행OCT검사;의대리Nidek공사MP-1미시야계진행안저성상、고시검측화시야검사.OCT급MP-1검사균이시반호측2개시반직경(DD)、하방1/3 DD작위황반중심요진행검사.채용통계학방법대비분석환안BCVA、중심요후도(CMT)、중심10°적광민감도(MS)이급동시정황.결과 불동병인ME환자중,CMT여BCVA지간무명현상관성(r=-0.429,P=0.069);CMT여MS지간무명현상관성(r=-0.433,P=0.058).고시분석중,고시은정조여동시불은정조CMT차이유통계학의의(F=3.262,P=0.039),중심주시조여편심주시조비교,CMT차이유통계학의의(F=3.173,P=0.044).결론 ME환자CMT증가,단여BCVA、MS무상관성;CMT증가,동시은정성하강.고시위치발생편이,출현편심주시.
Objective To determine the correlation between central macular thickness (CMT) and the visual function in patients iwht macular edema (ME). Methods The clinical data of 42 eyes of 40 patients with ME which were examined by optical coherence tomography (OCT) and microperimetry (MP-1) wereretrospectively analyzed. In 40 patients (42 eyes), diabetic ME (DME) was in 27 eyes,branch retinal vein occlusion was in 11eyes, and central retinal vein occlusion was in 4 eyes. All of the eyes had undergone OCT,MP-1 and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) test. Central macular thickness (CMT) was measured by fast macular scans using OCT. Retinal sensitivity (MS) and fixation patterns were evaluated by Mp-1.The position was chosen :2 disc diameters (DD) temporal to the disc and one third of a DD inferior to the centre of the disc. Results The correlation between CMT and BCVA is not significant (r=-0. 429, P=0. 069) as well as the correlation between CMT and MS (r=-0. 433,P=0. 058). The difference of CMT between the unstable and stable group was significant (F = 3. 262, P = 0. 039). The difference of CMT between the central fixation group and preferred retinal locus (PRL) group was significant (F=3. 173,P=0. 044). Conclusions BCVA and MS have no significant correlation with CMT. When CMT increases, the fixation stability decreases, fixation location, changes, and PRL occurs.