| ObjectiveTo observe the two types of laser photocoagulation technique and compare the treatment of diabetic macular edema clinical effect. To search for less destructive and more effective treatment measures to prevent or treat the diabetic macular edema ,reducing a minimum of complications and preventing duplication of therapy.MethodsSelecting from March 2008 to April 2009 in the outpatient treatment of diabetic retinopathy (DR) patients, the fundus and fundus fluorescein angiography for the diagnosis of macular edema in diabetic patients 48 cases (76eyes) as research subjects. All these patients had a comprehensive ophthalmic examination to exclude other than DR eye disease, visual acuity chart with international standards of testing the treatment of eye best-corrected visual acuity, parallel fundus angiography and optical coherence tomography 48 cases of patients, 28 eyes were selected are in line with standards in line with the 20 cases selected for monocular standards; eyes which are in line with the right selection criteria assigned to the A group (modified ETDRS grid photocoagulation group), left eye assigned to the B group (mild macular grid photocoagulation group), selected in line with the standard single-lens reflextreatment order by the single-and double-random number assigned to A or B group. Follow-up after treatment for 6 months. Before and after treatment were observed in patients with visual acuity, fundus fluorescence angiography and the optical coherence tomography. Using t test or x~2 test, and paired t test, analysis the effects of two types of laser treatment and to draw appropriate conclusions. ResultsA group of 25 cases of 40 eyes, men 10 cases 16 eyes (40.00%), female 15 cases 24 eyes (60.00%); Age: 42 - 78 years old, the average (58.85±7.12). Visual acuity: before and after treatment t (0.42±0.11), (0.47±0.12).the average increase in visual acuity after treatment 0.05, the difference was statistically significant (t = 3.928, p <0.01); OCT: pre-treatment of macular retinal thickness foveal area average: (326.23±145.43)μm, after laser treatment (252.00±114.55)μm, treatment is effective (t = 10.988, p<0.01). B group 23 cases 36 eyes, men nine cases 15 eyes (41.67%), female 14 cases 21 eyes (58.33%); Age: 45 - 78 years old, the average (59.92±6.65). Visual acuity: before and after treatment (0.43±0.13), (0.46±0.12). the average increase in visual acuity after treatment 0.03, the difference was statistically significant (t = 2.778, p <0.01). OCT: pre-treatment area of macular retinal foveal average thickness: (335.92±117.5)μm, after laser treatment (266.11±102.58)μm, treatment is also effective (t = 15.086, p <0.01). A, B two groups before treatment showed a clear FFA strong fluorescent spots or leakage point, there are diffuse retinal leakage area, retinal non-perfusion area can be seen. After treatment showed tumor microvessel disappeared, no significant leakage of the region, have no neovascularization, retinal non-perfusion area disappeared. A, B two groups of patients with gender composition and the average age there was no statistically significant difference (P> 0.05); vision change A, B are the two groups after treatment to improve visio. Foveal area of macular retinal thickness showed that the changes in A, B between the two groups was no significant difference (t = 0.5633, p> 0.05).ConclusionThe modified grid photocoagulation with mild macular grid photocoagulation for the treatment of samples are valid; Comparison of two methods was no significant difference (P>0.05); modified grid photocoagulation should continue to be a standard method of treatment of diabetic macular edema; have a try to use mild macular grid photocoagulation to treat the diabetic macular edema.
|
PDF Full Text Request