玻璃体腔注射曲安奈德治疗视网膜静脉阻塞黄斑水肿(英文)

Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide for macular edema in retinal vein occlusion

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。

AIM：To compare the efficacy of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide and conventional treatment for macular edema in retinal vein occlusion. METHODS： In this clinical study 21 patients were enrolled with macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion. Prior to treatment, all patients underwent an extensive ophthalmic examination. Patients were divided randomly into two groups. Nine patients were treated with 4mg intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide （Kenalog） and 12 patients underwent conventional treatment. RESULTS： Before treatment, IogMAR （logarithm minimum angle resolution ） visual acuity in conventional treatment was 1.20 ± 0.38 and in Kenalog group it was 1.64 ± 0.31. One month after treatment, the visual acuity was improved to 0.98 ± 0.54 in conventional treatment group and 0.87 ± 0.61 in Kenalog group. There was a significant difference in visual acuity improvement between conventional treatment group and Kenalog group （0.22 vs 0.76） （P=0.01）. CONCLUSION：Our results showed that although visual acuity improvement was seen in both groups but Kenalog was more effective than conventional treatment in macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion.