阈下微脉冲激光与氩离子激光治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿的临床随机对照研究

Randomized, controlled clinical trial comparison of SDM laser versus argon ion laser in diabetic macular edema

摘要:

目的：比较阈下微脉冲激光(波长810nm)同氩离子激光(波长514nm)治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿的疗效。

方法：采用临床随机对照研究的方法对84例99眼进行分组，并分别行810nm激光与514nm激光，治疗后随访6mo，行最佳矫正视力、FFA、OCT检查，评估疗效。

结果：50眼及49眼分别完成了810nm激光及514nm激光治疗，治疗后随访结果显示：无论810nm还是514nm激光均能稳定及提高视力，二组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)； 治疗前后视网膜厚度及黄斑水肿均有所改善，且自身治疗前后差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)，二组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论：无论810nm激光还是514nm激光均可以一定程度的稳定及提高视力，且对糖尿病性黄斑水肿治疗有效，二者间的差异无统计学意义。

Abstract:

AIM: To compare the efficacy of subthreshold micropulse diode(SDM)laser treatment and argon ion laser treatment for diabetic macular edema(DME).

METHODS: A prospective, randomized controlled trial was carried out in 84 patients(99 eyes), in which, 49 eyes received argon ion laser treatment and 50 eyes received SDM laser treatment. The changes in best corrected visual acuity(BCVA), baseline fluorescein angiography and optic coherence tomography measurements were evaluated in both groups. Follow-up visit was over 6 months from baseline.

RESULTS: Ninety-nine eyes(84 patients )complete the study. Six months after treatment, the BCVA improved 22.4% and 20.0% eyes in argon ion laser group and SDM laser group respectively. 55.1% and 58.0% eyes received steady BCVA. Edema partial regression was accounted for 49% in argon ion laser group, while that was 56% in SDM laser group. No statistically significant changes were found in each group.

CONCLUSION: No matter argon ion laser or SDM laser is effective to keep or improve the VA in DME. After 6-month follow-up, there is no statistically significant difference between them.