摘要
目的分析对比氩激光和氪激光治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿的疗效。方法对背景型和增生型糖尿病性视网膜病变伴有黄斑水肿(包括局部水肿、弥漫水肿和囊样水肿)的患者共100例,分别采用氩绿激光和氪黄激光进行焦点光凝或格栅光凝,观察治疗前后的视力、眼底和荧光血管造影的改变,对比2种激光的疗效。结果糖尿病性黄斑病变患者共73人,100眼。氩激光治疗组37人53眼,氪激光治疗组36人47眼。随诊观察期平均8.2m。治疗后氩激光组黄斑水肿完全消退者占58.5%,部分消退者占26.4%,未消退者占15.1%;氪激光组黄斑水肿完全消退者占63.8%,部分消退者占17.0%,未消退者占19.1%。氩激光组视力进步者占34.0%,保持不变者占43.4%,氪激光组视力进步者占25.5%,保持不变者占53.2%,两组相比差异无显著性的意义(P>0.05)。经氩激光/氪激光治疗后,多数患者视力有提高(30%)或保持稳定(48%)。结论氩绿激光和氪黄激光均可以有效治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿,两种激光的疗效无显著性差异。
Objective Compare the results of argon and krypton laser photocoagulation in treatment of diabetic macular edema. Methods We performed focal or grid photocoagulation with green argon/yellow krypton laser for 100 cases of diabetic macular edema. Visual acuity, fundus exam and fundus fluorescein an- giography were carried out before and after the treatment to observe the results of the 2 types of laser. Results In 100 cases of diabetic macular edema, 53 eyes were treated with argon laser and 47 eyes with krypton laser. The follow - up period was 8. 2 months in average. The ratio of increasing and stable visual acuity after photocoagulation reached 34. 0% and 43.4% in argon laser group while 25.5% and 53. 2% in krypton laser group. 84. 9% cases of macular edema decreased apparently in argon group while 80. 8% in krypton group. There is no significant difference between the 2 groups. Conclusions There is no significant difference between the result of argon and krypton laser in diabetic macular edema treatment.
出处
《中国实用眼科杂志》
CSCD
北大核心
2006年第2期142-144,共3页
Chinese Journal of Practical Ophthalmology
