摘要
目的:鉴于视网膜中央静脉阻塞central retinal vein occlusion(CRVO);所致持续性黄斑水肿persistent macular edema(ME);治疗有很多争议,探讨更有效的治疗办法。方法:玻璃体腔注射曲安奈德(TA)31例、注射抗血管内皮生长因子单克隆抗体(Ranibizumab)30例,和两组中注药加激光21例,通过测量视力、眼压,中央视网膜厚度等方面来探讨玻璃体腔注射Ranibizumab、TA和注药+激光光凝治疗效果,并应用统计学方法进行分析对比。结果:注射Ranibizumab组和TA组:最佳矫正视力在注药前后对比,两组均有显著统计学差异。中央视网膜厚度在注药前后对比,两组亦均有统计学差异。结论:玻璃体腔注射TA与Ranibizumab在治疗CRVO继发黄斑水肿时,均在短期内能明显降低水肿的视网膜和改善视力,Ranibizumab反复注射的次数要比TA多一些;TA比Ranibizumab副作用多,安全性差。激光和注药相比并不能够改善视力,但对减轻水肿和防止新生血管性青光眼有作用,故在必须时要慎重选择。
Objective： Central retinal vein occlusion （CRVO）induced persistent macular edema （ME） by more effective measures, as there is a lot of controversy treatment. Methods： injection of tri- amcinolone acetonide （TA） was in 31 cases, vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody （Ranibizumab） was in 30 cases, and 21 cases was drug injection plus laser in two groups, the visual acuity,intraocular pressure, central retinal thickness （CRT）were measured to evaluate the treatment effect of intravitreal injection of Ranibizumab, TA and injection ＋ laser photocoagulation, and statistical methods were used for analysis and comparison. Results： The best-corrected visual acuity （BCVA） are significant difference compared with before injections. The central retinal thickness are also. Conclusion： Intravitreal injections of TA and Ranibizumab in two groups are effective in the treatment of CRVO secondary to CME. The number of repeated injection of Ranibizumab is more than that of TA ; TA has some more side effect, poor safety, Laser and injection then cannot improve eyesight, but they can alleviate edema and neovascular glaucoma, so when necessary, they can be chosen, but not excessive treatment.
出处
《内蒙古医科大学学报》
2014年第3期222-225,共4页
Journal of Inner Mongolia Medical University
关键词
视网膜中央静脉阻塞
持续性黄斑水肿
光学相干断层扫描
曲安奈德
雷珠单抗
central retinal vein occlusion
persistent macular edema
triamcinolone acetonide
vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody（Ranibizumab）
