目的：探讨常规矫正治疗结合视觉训练仪对屈光不正性弱视(AMA)患儿的临床应用效果。方法：前瞻性随机对照研究。选择2021年6月至2022年12月本院诊治的AMA患儿188例376眼，使用随机数字表将其分为两组：常规矫正组94例188眼予以常规矫正治疗，联合治疗组94例188眼给予常规矫正治疗结合视觉训练仪。两组患者均治疗12 mo。比较两组患儿治疗前，治疗6、12 mo最佳矫正视力、屈光度、眼调节功能以及不良反应、弱视复发率及临床疗效。结果：随访期间两组各脱落8例16眼，失访率为8.5%，各组均纳入86例172眼。两组患儿治疗前后最佳矫正视力、屈光度、调节幅度、调节灵敏度、调节滞后量均有差异(均P<0.05)； 联合治疗组总有效率(98.8%)高于常规矫正组(91.9%)(P<0.05)； 不同年龄段、不同弱视程度两组临床疗效总有效率比较均无差异(均P>0.05)； 两组红肿发生率比较无差异(P>0.05)； 联合治疗组弱视复发率(1.2%)低于常规矫正组(8.1%)(P<0.05)。结论：常规矫正治疗结合视觉训练仪对AMA患儿临床疗效显著，能够有效矫正患儿视力，调节屈光度，改善眼调节功能，弱视复发率低且安全性高。

AIM: To explore the clinical application effect of visual training equipment combined with conventional corrective treatment on children with ametropic amblyopia(AMA).METHODS: Prospective randomized control study. A total of 188 children(376 eyes)with AMA treated in our hospital from June 2021 to December 2022 were selected, and they were divided into two groups using a random number table. The conventional correction group(94 cases, 188 eyes)received conventional correction treatment, while the visual training group(94 cases, 188 eyes)received visual training equipment combined with conventional correction treatment, both lasted for 12 mo. The best corrected visual acuity, diopter, eye accommodation function, adverse reactions, amblyopia recurrence rates, and clinical efficacy were compared between the two groups at 6 and 12 mo after treatment.RESULTS:The two groups each had 8 cases(16 eyes)detached, the rate of loss to follow-up was 8.5%, and 86 cases(172 eyes)were included in each group. There were statistically significant differences in the best corrected visual acuity, diopter, amplitude of accommodation, accommodation facility and accommodative lag between the two groups of children before and after treatment(all P<0.05). The total effective rate of the visual training group(98.8%)was higher than that of the conventional correction group(91.9%; P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the total effective rate of clinical efficacy between the two groups in different age groups and different degrees of amblyopia(all P>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of redness and swelling between the two groups(P>0.05). The recurrence rate of amblyopia in the visual training group(1.2%)was lower than that in the conventional correction group(8.1%; P<0.05).CONCLUSION: The combination of visual training equipment and conventional correction therapy has a significant clinical effect on children with AMA, which can effectively correct visual acuity, adjusting diopter and improve eye accommodation function, and recurrence rate of amblyopia is low and safety is high.

河南省医学科技攻关计划(No.LHGJ20240962)