中华眼底病杂志
中華眼底病雜誌
중화안저병잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF OCULAR FUNDUS DISEASES
2009年
4期
270-274
,共5页
黄斑水肿,囊样/治疗%曲安奈德/治疗应用%激光凝固术/方法%治疗效果
黃斑水腫,囊樣/治療%麯安奈德/治療應用%激光凝固術/方法%治療效果
황반수종,낭양/치료%곡안내덕/치료응용%격광응고술/방법%치료효과
Macular edema,cystoid/therapy%Triameinolone acetonide/therapeutic use%Laser coagulation/methods%Treatment outcome
目的 比较单纯玻璃体腔注射曲安奈德(IVTA)与IVTA联合黄斑格栅样激光光凝(MLG)治疗黄斑水肿的疗效.方法 经眼底检查及光相干断层扫描(OCT)检查确诊的黄斑水肿患者89例109只眼,视力手动～0.8,平均视力0.19±0.13;眼压7～21 mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa),平均眼压13.78 mm Hg.所有患者行OCT及微视野检查,黄斑中心凹厚度为(570±182)μm;黄斑中心凹4°范围内视网膜平均光敏感度为(5.07±3.94)dB,固视点百分比为70.67%.所有患眼均接受IVTA治疗,其中39例48只眼在IVTA后1个月行MLG,为IVTA联合MLG组;其余50例61只眼未行MLG,为单纯IVTA组.对比分析患者治疗前以及治疗后1、3、6、12个月最佳矫正视力(BCVA)、眼压,晶状体及眼底检查以及OCT、微视野检查结果,以手术后第12个月的观察指标作为疗效判定标准.对各组各项指标进行统计学分析.结果 手术后12个月,IVTA联合MLG组与单纯IVTA组BCVA分别为0.41±0.20、0.24±0.19,二者比较差异有统计学意义(t=4.503,P<0.05);两组黄斑中心凹厚度分别为(309±187)、(487±206)μm,二者比较差异有统计学意义(t=4.717,P<0.05);两组黄斑中心凹4°平均光敏感度分别为(8.24±4.64)、(6.30±3.22)dB,二者比较差异有统计学意义(t=2.467,P<0.05);两组固视点百分比分别为(87.01±19.70)、(78.85±20.41)%,二者比较差异有统计学意义(t=2.110,P<0.05).随访期间单纯IVTA组黄斑水肿复发28只眼,IVTA联合MLG组8只眼复发.结论 IVTA联合MLG较单纯IVTA治疗黄斑水肿更为有效.
目的 比較單純玻璃體腔註射麯安奈德(IVTA)與IVTA聯閤黃斑格柵樣激光光凝(MLG)治療黃斑水腫的療效.方法 經眼底檢查及光相榦斷層掃描(OCT)檢查確診的黃斑水腫患者89例109隻眼,視力手動～0.8,平均視力0.19±0.13;眼壓7～21 mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa),平均眼壓13.78 mm Hg.所有患者行OCT及微視野檢查,黃斑中心凹厚度為(570±182)μm;黃斑中心凹4°範圍內視網膜平均光敏感度為(5.07±3.94)dB,固視點百分比為70.67%.所有患眼均接受IVTA治療,其中39例48隻眼在IVTA後1箇月行MLG,為IVTA聯閤MLG組;其餘50例61隻眼未行MLG,為單純IVTA組.對比分析患者治療前以及治療後1、3、6、12箇月最佳矯正視力(BCVA)、眼壓,晶狀體及眼底檢查以及OCT、微視野檢查結果,以手術後第12箇月的觀察指標作為療效判定標準.對各組各項指標進行統計學分析.結果 手術後12箇月,IVTA聯閤MLG組與單純IVTA組BCVA分彆為0.41±0.20、0.24±0.19,二者比較差異有統計學意義(t=4.503,P<0.05);兩組黃斑中心凹厚度分彆為(309±187)、(487±206)μm,二者比較差異有統計學意義(t=4.717,P<0.05);兩組黃斑中心凹4°平均光敏感度分彆為(8.24±4.64)、(6.30±3.22)dB,二者比較差異有統計學意義(t=2.467,P<0.05);兩組固視點百分比分彆為(87.01±19.70)、(78.85±20.41)%,二者比較差異有統計學意義(t=2.110,P<0.05).隨訪期間單純IVTA組黃斑水腫複髮28隻眼,IVTA聯閤MLG組8隻眼複髮.結論 IVTA聯閤MLG較單純IVTA治療黃斑水腫更為有效.
목적 비교단순파리체강주사곡안내덕(IVTA)여IVTA연합황반격책양격광광응(MLG)치료황반수종적료효.방법 경안저검사급광상간단층소묘(OCT)검사학진적황반수종환자89례109지안,시력수동～0.8,평균시력0.19±0.13;안압7～21 mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa),평균안압13.78 mm Hg.소유환자행OCT급미시야검사,황반중심요후도위(570±182)μm;황반중심요4°범위내시망막평균광민감도위(5.07±3.94)dB,고시점백분비위70.67%.소유환안균접수IVTA치료,기중39례48지안재IVTA후1개월행MLG,위IVTA연합MLG조;기여50례61지안미행MLG,위단순IVTA조.대비분석환자치료전이급치료후1、3、6、12개월최가교정시력(BCVA)、안압,정상체급안저검사이급OCT、미시야검사결과,이수술후제12개월적관찰지표작위료효판정표준.대각조각항지표진행통계학분석.결과 수술후12개월,IVTA연합MLG조여단순IVTA조BCVA분별위0.41±0.20、0.24±0.19,이자비교차이유통계학의의(t=4.503,P<0.05);량조황반중심요후도분별위(309±187)、(487±206)μm,이자비교차이유통계학의의(t=4.717,P<0.05);량조황반중심요4°평균광민감도분별위(8.24±4.64)、(6.30±3.22)dB,이자비교차이유통계학의의(t=2.467,P<0.05);량조고시점백분비분별위(87.01±19.70)、(78.85±20.41)%,이자비교차이유통계학의의(t=2.110,P<0.05).수방기간단순IVTA조황반수종복발28지안,IVTA연합MLG조8지안복발.결론 IVTA연합MLG교단순IVTA치료황반수종경위유효.
Objective To compare the efficacy of intravitreal triamcinolone(IVTA) injection and IVTA combined with macular laser grid photocoagulation (MLGP) to treat macular edema.Methods Consecutive 89 patients (109 eyes)diagnosed with macular edema by examinations of ocular fundus and optical coherence tomography (OCT).The visual acuity was hand moving- 0.8 (0.19±0.13);the intraocular pressure(IOP)ranged from 7 mm Hg to 21 mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)and the average IOP was 13.78 mm Hg.All the patients received OCT and microperimetry examinations,the central macular thickness was (570±182) μm;the average light sensitivity was (5.07±3.94) dB and the fixation percentage was 70.67% within 4 ° area around the macular fovea.All the patients received IVTA treatment,39 patients (48 eyes)further received MLGP 1 month later (IVTA-MLGP group).The remaining 50 patients (61 eyes) without MLGP treatment was the IVTA group.Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA),lOP,lens,OCT and microprimetry examinations before and after IVTA (1,3,6,12 months) were followed and analyzed.Results On the 12th months,the BCVA in IVTA-MLGP and IVTA group was (0.41±0.20),(0.24±0.19) respectively (P<0.05);the central macular thickness was (309±187) and (487±206) μm respectively(P<0.05);the mean light sensitivity of 4° central macular was (8.24±4.64)and(6.30±3.22) dB respectively (P<0.05);the fixation percentage was (87.01±19.70)% and (78.85±20.41) % respectively (P<0.05).During the follow-up recurrent macular edema was noticed in 28 eyes of IVTA group and 8 eyes of IVTA-MLGP group.Conclusions IVTA combined with MLG was more effective than IVTA to cure macular edema.
