改良与传统全视网膜光凝术治疗糖尿病视网膜病变疗效观察

发布时间：2018-05-06 00:23

本文选题：糖尿病视网膜病变 + 视网膜光凝术　；参考：《眼科新进展》2017年12期

【摘要】：目的比较改良全视网膜光凝术(modified panretinal photocoagulation,MPRP)和传统全视网膜光凝术(panretinal photocoagulation,PRP)治疗糖尿病视网膜病变的疗效及安全性。方法采用临床病例对照研究方法。对2013年10月至2017年1月在我院眼科经眼底荧光素血管造影等检查确诊为重度非增殖型糖尿病视网膜病变(severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy,NPDR)或轻度增殖型糖尿病视网膜病变(proliferative diabetic retinopathy,PDR)并行全视网膜光凝术的患者53例(106眼)进行研究,入组患者双眼糖尿病视网膜病变程度一致,均选择右眼为治疗组,行MPRP;左眼为对照组,行PRP;每组53眼。激光治疗后1 d、1周、1个月、3个月、6个月观察视力、眼压、散瞳彩色眼底照相及光学相干断层扫描,激光治疗后3个月、6个月时增加FFA检查,比较两组疗效及安全性。结果两组患眼经治疗后,各时期最佳矫正视力比较差异均无统计学意义(均为P0.05),但治疗组视力平均值均高于对照组。治疗组视网膜无灌注区消失、新生血管消退39眼(73.6%),有效率90.6%;对照组视网膜无灌注区消失、新生血管消退29眼(54.7%),有效率75.5%。两组新生血管消退率及有效率差异均有统计学意义(均为P0.05)。结论 MPRP治疗糖尿病视网膜病变安全有效,疗效优于传统PRP。
[Abstract]:Objective to compare the efficacy and safety of modified total retinal photocoagulation (modified panretinal photocoagulation, MPRP) and traditional retinal photocoagulation (panretinal photocoagulation, PRP) in the treatment of diabetic retinopathy. Methods the clinical case control study was used. The ophthalmic fundus fluorescein in our hospital from October 2013 to January 2017 was compared. 53 cases (106 eyes) of patients with severe non proliferative diabetic retinopathy (severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy, NPDR) or mild proliferative diabetic retinopathy (proliferative diabetic retinopathy, PDR) were diagnosed with severe non proliferative diabetic retinopathy (proliferative diabetic retinopathy, PDR). The degree of retinopathy was the same, the right eye was selected as the treatment group, MPRP, the left eye as the control group, the control group, PRP, 53 eyes in each group, 1 d after the laser treatment, 1 weeks, 1 months, 3 months, 6 months to observe the visual acuity, the pupil color fundus photography and optical coherence tomography, the laser treatment 3 months after 6 months, and 6 months to increase the efficacy and safety of the two groups to compare the efficacy and safety of two groups and safety. Compare the effect and safety of the two groups and compare the safety and safety of the two groups and the safety and safety. Results there was no significant difference in the best corrected visual acuity between the two groups (all P0.05), but the average visual acuity of the treatment group was higher than that of the control group. The retinal perfusion area in the treatment group disappeared, the neovascularization disappeared in 39 eyes (73.6%) and the effective rate was 90.6%. The retinal perfusion area in the control group disappeared and the neovascularization disappeared in 29 eyes. 54.7%) there were significant differences between the effective rate and the effective rate of 75.5%. two groups. Conclusion MPRP is safe and effective in the treatment of diabetic retinopathy, and the curative effect is better than that of the traditional PRP..

【作者单位】：北京市门头沟区医院眼科;
【分类号】：R587.2;R779.63

【相似文献】