三种方法治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿的对比研究

发布时间：2018-03-03 20:27

本文选题：黄斑区格栅样激光光凝　切入点：雷珠单抗　出处：《中国临床研究》2016年09期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：目的探讨黄斑区格栅样激光光凝(MLG)、雷珠单抗(R)联合MLG和曲安奈德(TA)联合MLG治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿(DME)的疗效及安全性。方法选取2013年1月至2015年6月收治的102例DME患者作为研究对象。根据治疗方案的不同,将患者分为A组(31例,36眼)、B组(34例,44眼)和C组(37例,54眼)。A、B、C组分别行MLG术、R联合MLG术和TA联合MLG术。检测3组患眼的最小分辨视角的对数值(log MAR)、黄斑中央视网膜厚度(CMT)和眼底荧光渗漏情况;检测3组被研究眼对侧正常眼的log MAR和CMT;统计3组的不良反应情况。结果 3组治疗后的log MAR和CMT均明显低于治疗前(P均0.05);治疗3个月时,B组的log MAR和CMT均明显低于C组(P0.05),A组无渗漏的构成比在3组中最低(P0.0167);治疗3个月和6个月时,A组的log MAR和CMT均明显高于其他两组(P均0.05);治疗6个月时,B组和C组的水肿减轻构成比均明显高于A组(P均0.0167);B组和C组的不良反应总发病率均明显高于A组(P均0.0167)。结论 MLG、R联合MLG和TA联合MLG治疗DME的疗效均明确,其中以R联合MLG和TA联合MLG的疗效更为显著,但联合治疗的不良反应也明显增多。
[Abstract]:Objective to investigate the efficacy and safety of MLG and triamcinolone acetonide combined with MLG in the treatment of diabetic macular edema. Methods 102 cases of DME from January 2013 to June 2015 were selected. Patients as subjects of study. Depending on the treatment plan, The patients were divided into group A (n = 31, n = 36) and group C (n = 37, n = 54) and group C (n = 37, n = 54) were treated with MLG combined with MLG and TA combined with MLG, respectively. The logarithmic values of minimum resolution angle of view (MVA), central macular retina and central macular retina were detected in three groups. Thickness of CMT) and fundus fluorescence leakage; Log MAR and CMT were measured in the contralateral normal eyes of the three groups, and the adverse reactions of the three groups were analyzed. Results the log MAR and CMT in the three groups were significantly lower than those in the control group before treatment (P 0.05), and log MAR and CMT in group B were significantly lower than those in group B after 3 months of treatment. The log MAR and CMT of group A were significantly higher than those of the other two groups at 3 and 6 months after treatment, and the ratio of edema reduction in group B and group C was obviously higher than that in group B and group C at 6 months after treatment. The total incidence of adverse reactions in group A was significantly higher than that in group A (0.0167%) and group C (0.0167%). Conclusion the efficacy of MLGR combined with MLG and TA combined with MLG in the treatment of DME is clear. Among them, R combined with MLG and TA combined with MLG were more effective, but the adverse reactions of combined therapy were also increased.
【作者单位】：延安市人民医院眼科;
【基金】：陕西省卫生科研项目(2014E8) 延安市科学技术研究发展计划项目(2014-12)
【分类号】：R587.2;R774.5

【相似文献】