摘要
目的探讨聚合酶链反应（PCR）和间接免疫荧光法（IIF）对角膜内皮炎的病原学诊断价值。方法分别应用PCR和IIF对临床诊断为角膜内皮炎患者的房水进行单纯疱疹病毒检测，同时以老年白内障患者的房水作为对照，许做统计学分析。结果16例角膜内皮炎患者的房水中，用PCR法检测阳性11例，阳性检出率为68．75％，20例对照组房水中无1例阳性，二者有显著性差异（P〈0．05）；13例角膜内皮炎患者的房水中，用IIF法检测阳性4例，阳性检出率为30．77％，20例对照组房水中无1例阳性，二者有显著性差异（P〈0．05）；角膜内皮炎患者的房水中PCR阳性检出率（68．75％）与IIF阳性检出率（30．77％）差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论PCR法和IIF法均可作为角膜内皮炎的病原学快速诊断，但PCR法比IIF法敏感，可首选。
Objective To evaluate the significance of polymerase chain reaction and indirect immunofluorescent technique on etiologic diagnosis of endotheliitis.Methods Herpes simplex virus in aqueous aspirate of the study group with corneal endotheliitis and the control groups with senile cataract were detected by polymerase chain reaction （PCR） and indirect immunofluorescent （IIF） technique, Results In the study group, 11 cases suffering from corneal endotheliitis had positive reactions in aqueous humor detected by PCR, the positive ratio was 68.75%. While in the control group, no case suffering from senile cataract had positive reaction detected by PCR. There was a significant difference between two groups. In the study group, 4 cases suffering from corneal eudotheliitis had positive reactions in aqueous humor detected by IIF technique, the positive ratio was 30.77%. While in the control group, no case suffering from senile cataract had positive reaction detected by IIF technique. There was a significant difference between the study group and the control group statistically （P〈0.05）. It the study groups, there was a significant difference between PCR and IIF detecting technique statistically （P〈0.05）. Conclusions PCR and IIF technique are rapid and simple etiologic diagnosis for patients suffering from endothefiitis caused by herpes simplex virus and is helpful for clinical treatment. PCR is better than IIF technique.
出处
《中国实用眼科杂志》
CSCD
北大核心
2009年第7期697-700,共4页
Chinese Journal of Practical Ophthalmology
关键词
聚合酶链反应
间接免疫荧光法
角膜内皮炎
Corneal endotheliitis
Polymerase chain reaction
Indirect immunofluorescent technique
