海南医学
海南醫學
해남의학
Hainan Medical Journal
2015年
19期
2851-2854
,共4页
白内障%超声乳化吸除术%小切口囊外摘除术%视觉功能%生存质量
白內障%超聲乳化吸除術%小切口囊外摘除術%視覺功能%生存質量
백내장%초성유화흡제술%소절구낭외적제술%시각공능%생존질량
Cataract%Phacoemulsification%Small incision extracapsular cataract surgery%Visual function%Quality of life
目的 比较不同的手术方式治疗白内障对患者视觉功能和生存质量的影响.方法 115例白内障患者参与了本次调查,其中60例接受超声乳化吸除术,55例接受小切口囊外摘除术,分别在术前和术后1周采用视觉功能和生存质量调查量表对所有患者进行问卷调查,并比较两组患者的调查结果.结果 两组患者术前总体视觉功能、总体生存质量,以及各维度的评分比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),术后的评分与术前比较均有不同程度改善(P<0.05),但接受超声乳化吸除术治疗的患者术后的总体视觉功能、总体生存质量和各维度的评分均优于接受小切口囊外摘除术的患者,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 两种手术方式对白内障患者术后视功能和生存质量均有改善作用,但超声乳化吸除术的改善程度更优于小切口囊外摘除术.
目的 比較不同的手術方式治療白內障對患者視覺功能和生存質量的影響.方法 115例白內障患者參與瞭本次調查,其中60例接受超聲乳化吸除術,55例接受小切口囊外摘除術,分彆在術前和術後1週採用視覺功能和生存質量調查量錶對所有患者進行問捲調查,併比較兩組患者的調查結果.結果 兩組患者術前總體視覺功能、總體生存質量,以及各維度的評分比較差異均無統計學意義(P>0.05),術後的評分與術前比較均有不同程度改善(P<0.05),但接受超聲乳化吸除術治療的患者術後的總體視覺功能、總體生存質量和各維度的評分均優于接受小切口囊外摘除術的患者,差異均有統計學意義(P<0.05).結論 兩種手術方式對白內障患者術後視功能和生存質量均有改善作用,但超聲乳化吸除術的改善程度更優于小切口囊外摘除術.
목적 비교불동적수술방식치료백내장대환자시각공능화생존질량적영향.방법 115례백내장환자삼여료본차조사,기중60례접수초성유화흡제술,55례접수소절구낭외적제술,분별재술전화술후1주채용시각공능화생존질량조사량표대소유환자진행문권조사,병비교량조환자적조사결과.결과 량조환자술전총체시각공능、총체생존질량,이급각유도적평분비교차이균무통계학의의(P>0.05),술후적평분여술전비교균유불동정도개선(P<0.05),단접수초성유화흡제술치료적환자술후적총체시각공능、총체생존질량화각유도적평분균우우접수소절구낭외적제술적환자,차이균유통계학의의(P<0.05).결론 량충수술방식대백내장환자술후시공능화생존질량균유개선작용,단초성유화흡제술적개선정도경우우소절구낭외적제술.
Objective To compare the impact of different operations on visual function (VF) and quality of life (QOL) in treating patients with cataract. Methods One hundred and fifteen patients with cataract were divided into treatment group (60 cases) who received phacoemulsification (PHACO) and control group (55 cases) who under-went small incision extracapsular cataract surgery (SICS). The VF and QOL questionnaires were competed preopera-tively and 1 week after surgery, and the results of two groups were compared. Results The preoperative sores of each dimension, overall VF, and overall QOL in two groups showed no significant difference (P>0.05). The scores of each dimension, overall VF, and overall QOL in each group were all improved significantly after surgery (P<0.05). In addition, when the postoperative scores of two groups were compared, PHACO was significantly better than SICS (P<0.05). Conclusion Both PHACO and SICS could improve VF and QOL on patients with cataract, but the improve-ment of PHACO is better than SICS.