论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较玻璃体腔注射曲安奈德和传统方法治疗视网膜静脉阻塞黄斑水肿的疗效。方法:共有21例因视网膜静脉阻塞导致黄斑水肿的患者纳入此项临床研究。接受治疗前所有的患者均进行了全面的眼科检查,并随机分为两组。实验组9例患者进行玻璃体腔注射4mg曲安奈德治疗;对照组12例患者接受传统方法治疗。结果:治疗前,对照组视力(logMAR)为1.20±0.38,而实验组为1.64±0.31。治疗后1mo,对照组的视力改善到0.98±0.54(logMAR),而曲安奈德治疗组改善到0.87±0.61(logMAR)。实验组和对照组之间视力改善有显著差异(P<0.01)。结论:研究结果显示,尽管实验组和对照组的患者视力均有改善,但治疗视网膜静脉阻塞黄斑水肿,玻璃体腔注射曲安奈德比传统方法更有效。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of intravitreous injection of triamcinolone acetonide and traditional methods in the treatment of retinal vein occlusion with macular edema. METHODS: A total of 21 patients with macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion were included in this clinical study. All patients underwent a complete ophthalmic examination before treatment and were randomized into two groups. Nine patients in the experimental group were treated with intravitreal injection of 4 mg of triamcinolone acetonide; in the control group, 12 patients were treated by traditional methods. Results: Before treatment, the visual acuity (logMAR) of control group was 1.20 ± 0.38, while the experimental group was 1.64 ± 0.31. At 1 month after treatment, the visual acuity of the control group improved to 0.98 ± 0.54 (logMAR), while the triamcinolone acetonide treatment group improved to 0.87 ± 0.61 (logMAR). There was a significant difference in vision improvement between the experimental group and the control group (P <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that, despite improved visual acuity in both experimental and control groups, retinal vein occlusion associated with macular edema was more effective than intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection.