新型非侵入性眼表综合分析仪与传统干眼评估标准的对比研究

Comparative study of new non-invasive ocular analyzer with traditional dry eye evaluation criteria

目的探讨Antares非侵入性眼表综合分析仪在于眼评估中的临床应用价值。方法采用观察性研究办法。对2015年5～7月于广州军区武汉总医院眼科准分子中心行屈光手术的近视患者34例（68只眼），术前进行OSDI问卷调查，Antares非侵入性眼表综合分析仪检查（下称仪器法）以及临床相关检查（下称传统法），包括泪膜破裂时间（BUT）及荧光素钠染色（FL）。仪器法及传统法检查结果均以2013年干眼临床诊疗专家共识为诊断及分级标准。分别将这三种方法的检查结果进行比较，从而对仪器的作用作出评价。结果仪器法测得的NIF-BUT、NIAvg-BUT、泪河高度，传统法测得的BUT均与OSDI干眼分级差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。干眼检出率：OSDI问卷为52．94％（18／34），仪器法为17．65％（6／34）、传统法为85．29％（29／34），这三种方法的检测结果均有显著的统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论Antares眼表综合分析仪作为一种非接触性、无创的快速检查手段，可对临床干眼的诊断提供一定的参考依据，但其功能仍有待进一步改进、完善。

Objective To investigate the clinical value of Antares non-invasive ocular analyzer. Methods Observational study approach. Data of 34 patients （68 eyes） with myopia that received ex- cimer refractive surgery were collected in Wuhan General Hospital of Guangzhou Military from May 2015 to July 2015. Before the surgery, OSDI questionnaire, Antares non-invasive ocular analyzer （re- ferred as instrumental method）, and relevant clinical examination （referred as traditional method）, it contained BUT and FL. The diagnosis and classification standards of instrumental method and tradi- tional method were both according to the 2013 Expert Consensus clinical treatment of dry eye. The results of these three methods were compared respectively and then the role of the instruments was evaluated. Results NIF-BUT, NIAvg-BUT, BUT, and TMH all had no significant correlation with OS- DI （P 〉0.05）. The detection rate： OSDI questionnaire was 52.94% （18/34）, instrumental method was 17.65% （6/34）, traditional method was 85.29% （29/34）, the three cases of dry eye detection method had significant statistical differences （P 〈0.05）. Conclusions Antares ocular analyzer as a non-con- tact, non-invasive means of a quick check can provide a reference for clinical diagnosis of dry eye. However, with the traditional clinical observations has failed to fully reflect the patient＇s experience.