期刊文献+

智能脉冲技术辅助的角膜表层屈光手术早期临床观察

Clinical observation on the efficacy at the early stage of TPRK with assistance of smart pulse technology
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的比较智能脉冲技术辅助的经上皮准分子激光角膜切削术(transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy,TPRK)与普通TPRK矫正近视手术术后早期眼部刺激症状及视力情况。方法回顾性研究。45例(90眼)按随机数字表法分为两组:对照组22例(44眼)行普通TPRK。智能组23例(46眼)行智能TPRK。术后随访3个月。结果智能组术后眼部刺激症状较轻,术后1 d及3 d的视力恢复较对照组快,差异有统计学意义(P=0.000,0.024)。术后10 d、1个月及3个月两组间视力差异无统计学意义(P=0.277,0.504,0.164)。两组术前及术后3个月角膜地形图表面规则指数和表面非对称指数差异无统计学意义(P=0.090,0.130,0.126,0.201)。结论智能TPRK术后眼部刺激症状较轻,早期视力恢复较快。 Objective To compare the efficacy at the early stage between smart pulse technology (SPT)-assisted transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (TPRK)and traditional TPRK for correcting of myopia.Methods The data of 90 eyes of 45 cases with myopia were retrospectively analyzed.All cases were divided into two groups randomly.The smart group,46 eyes of 23 patients,received SPT-TPRK.Contral group, 44 eyes of 22 patients,received traditional TPRK.All patients were followed up for 3 months.Results The stimulus syndrome of eye in the smart group was lighter than that in the TPRK group.After SPT-TPRK the visual acuity in the smart group was better than that at 1 and 3 days after surgery (P =0.000,0.024).The difference in visual acuity was not statistically significant between the two groups at 10 days,1 and 3 months after surgery(P =0.277,0.504,0.164).The differences of the surface regularity index (SRI)and surface asymmetry index(SAI)of topography in the two groups were statistically significant between preoperative and postoperative 3 months (P =0.090,0.130,0.126,0.201 ).Conclusion After SPT-TPRK the stimulus syndrome is Xess serious and visual acuity is better at the early stage after surgery.
作者 梁娜 宋鑫 徐惠芳 Liang Na;Song Xin;Xu Huifang(Department of Refraction,Yinchuan Aier Eye Hospital,Yinchuan 750004,China)
出处 《中华眼外伤职业眼病杂志》 2019年第1期41-44,共4页 Chinese Journal of Ocular Trauma and Occupational Eye Disease
关键词 激光 准分子 屈光性角膜切削术 近视 辅助 技术 智能脉冲 Lasers,exeimer Kerateetomy,photorefractive (PRK ) Myopia Technology,assisted,smart pulse
  • 相关文献

参考文献6

二级参考文献110

  • 1Dong-Mei Wang, Yi Du, Guang-Sheng Chen, Liu-Song Tang,,Jian-Feng He.Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy mode using SCHWIND-ESIRIS excimer laser:initial clinical results[J].International Journal of Ophthalmology(English edition),2012,5(3):334-337. 被引量:12
  • 2王勤美.屈光手术学[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2011.
  • 3Ferreira-Valente M A, Pais-Ribeiro J L, Jensen M P. Validity of four pain intensity rating scales [J]. Pain, 2011,152(10) : 2399-2404.
  • 4Herr K A, Spratt K, Mobily P R, et al. Pain intensity assessment in older adults: use of experimental pain to compare psychometric properties and usability of selected pain scales with younger adults [J]. Clin J Pain, 2004,20(4) :207-219.
  • 5Miro J, Castarlenas E, Huguet A. Evidence for the use of a numerical rating scale to assess the intensity of pediatric pain [J]. Eur J Pain, 2009, 13(10) : 1089-1095.
  • 6Miro J, Huguet A, Nieto R, et al. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and preference for a pain intensity scale for use with the elderly [J]. J Pain, 2005,6( 11 ) :727-735.
  • 7Breivik E K, Bjornsson G A, Skovlund E. A comparison of pain rating scales by sampling from clinical trial data [J]. Clin J Pain, 2000, 16( 1 ) :22-28.
  • 8Weber M, Schuz J, Kuball J, et al. Pain assessment in invasive diagnostic procedures. Comparison of an eleven-point numerical rating scale and a six-point verbal rating scale for pain measurement in bone marrow puncture [J]. Schmerz, 2005,19(6) :513-516,518-519.
  • 9Philip B K. Parametric statistics for evaluation of the visual analog scale [J]. Anesth Analg, 1990,71(6) :710.
  • 10Skovlund E, Bretthauer M, Grotmol T, et al. Sensitivity of pain rating scales in an endoscopy trial [J]. Clin J Pain, 2005,21 (4) : 292-296.

共引文献566

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部