摘要
目的比较不同程度远视性弱视眼与正视眼之间正负相对调节的差别。方法对2009年l～12月在河北大学附属医院眼科门诊能配合检查的远视性弱视儿童50例92只眼，分为中度弱视组26只眼为A组，轻度弱视组32只眼为B组，弱视治愈组34只眼为C组。采用负球镜递增法测量正相对调节量（PRA），正球镜递增法测量负相对调节量（NRA）。结果A、B、C组PRA平均值分别为（-2．42±1．49）D、（-3．68±0．66）D、（-3．97±1．00）D，对三组间PRA平均值进行方差分析，结果显示差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。进一步进行两两比较，结果显示B组、C组的PRA均〉A组，差异有统计学意义（P=0．000），而B组、C组二者之间差异无统计学意义（P：0．402）。A、B、C组NRA平均值分别为（＋1．97±0．31）D、（＋2．08±0．54）D、（＋2．12±0．85）D。对三组间NRA平均值的两两方差分析，结果显示A、B、C组之间NRA差异元统计学意义（P=0．783）。结论弱视治疗后期正相对调节量过高，提示眼调节处于低用状态，调节反应不足。负相对调节量差别无统计学意义。
Objective To investigate the difference of positive relative accommodation and nega- tive relative accommodation in the varying degrees of hyperopic amblyopes. Methods All 50 hyper- opic amblyopic children （92 eyes） were divided into the moderate amblyopic group （group A）, the mild amblyopic group （group B） and the cured amblyopic group （group C, which could coordinate our inspections）. The positive relative accommodation of all groups was measured with increasing concave lens test, and the negative relative accommodation was measured with increasing convex lens test. Results The mean value of PRA in group A was -2.42±1.49D, group B -3.68±0.66D, and group C -3.97±1.00D. The difference of the means of PRA among the three groups was signifi-cant （P =0.000）, but the difference among Group B and group C was no statistic meaning （P = 0.402）. The mean value of NRA in group A was （＋1.97±0.31）D, group B （＋2.08±0.54）D, group C （＋ 2.12±0.85）D. The difference of the means of NRA among the three groups was no statistic meaning （P=0.783）. Conclusions In the later amblyopia treatment, the deficiency of accommodation is more obvious and the accommodation is in less use.
出处
《中国实用眼科杂志》
CSCD
北大核心
2014年第5期604-606,共3页
Chinese Journal of Practical Ophthalmology
关键词
调节
远视性弱视
正相对调节
负相对调节
Accommodation
Hyperopic amblyopia
Positive relative accommodation
Negativerelative accommodation
