To Explore The Evaluate Outcomes Of Diabetic Maculare Edema By Triamcinolone Acetonide And Lucentis

Objective1.Evaluate the effect of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide(TA) combined withall Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) in treating the diabetic macular edema.2.Evaluate the effect of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (TA), lucentis, andtriamcinolone acetonide with lucentis in treating diabetic macular edema.Methods1.31patients with31eyes in diabetic macular edema were chosen. Patients wererandomly divided into two groups, which are the PRP treatment group, and IVTAplus PRP group. The combined treatment group completed IVTA4mg (0.1ml) in7days after PRP treatment, a total of4times per week, the PRP treatment group is onlytreated with PRP alone, a total of4times per week. All patients in the two groupswere return visit, and check the best corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure,retinal neovascularization, central macular thickness, anterior segment and fundusafter1month,3months,6months.2.30patients with30eyes in diabetic macular edema were chosen. Patients wererandomly divided into three groups, which are group A (triamcinolone acetonide),group B (Lucentis), group C (TA combined with Lucentis). Group A was injectedwith TA for4mg/0.1ml, group B was injected with Lucentis for0.05mg/0.05ml, andgroup C was injected with Lucentis0.05mg/0.05ml+TA2mg/0.05ml. All patients inthe two groups were return visit, and check the best corrected visual acuity,intraocular pressure, retinal neovascularization, central macular thickness, anteriorsegment and fundus after1month,3months. All the data used the statistical analysismethods by the SPSS data applications, including the t-test, the direct probabilitycalculation,analysis of variance and repeated design analysis of variance.Results1.The average best corrected visual acuity in the combined treatment group is nostatistical significance on1month(P>0.05), and the combined treatment group significance are higher than the PRP treatment group3months and6months aftertreatment (P<0.05), the control group no significant change;The retinalneovascularization leakage area was significantly lower in the combined treatmentgroup after treatment of1month and3months (P<0.05), but was not significant after6months(P>0.05), it present a downward trend; The macular retinal thickness valueslower in the joint group after1month,3months,6months (P<0.05), the controlgroup no significant change; The combined treatment group required lower laserenergy than the PRP treatment group(P <0.01); The IOP in both groups were nodifferent(P>0.05).2.The1th month after the treatment, the mean of best corrected visual acuity wasdifferent between group A, B and C (P<0.05), A is lower than B and C,while therewas no significantly statistical difference between group B and group C (P>0.05); The3th months, the best corrected visual acuity was no statistical significance among allgroups (P>0.05). Compared with the data of1month, the best corrected visual acuityimproved in group A, decreased in group B, and remained stable in group C; The1thand3th months, the retinal neovascularization was no statistical significance amongall groups (P>0.05).The retinal neovascularization of three group are all falled in the1month and3month. The1th month after the treatment, the mean of central macularthickness was different between group A, B and C (P<0.05), A is higher than B and C,while there was no significantly statistical difference between group B and group C(P>0.05); The3th month after the treatment, the mean of central macular thicknesswas different between group A, B and C (P<0.05), B is higher than A and C, whilethere was no significantly statistical difference between group A and group C(P>0.05).When compared with the consequence of1month later, the central macularthickness in group A and group C showed continual decrease, with a fallback in groupB; Except for IOP elevated in1case and the capsule and len opacity aggravated in2cases after injection in group A, other groups showed no retinal detachment, vitreoushemorrhage and infectious endophthalmitis.Conclusion 1.Intravitreal injection of TA combined with all retinal photocoagulation is agood way in treat the diabetic macular edema, which can reduce the energy needed forPRP, reduce the delay edema, protect the function of the retina, reduce macular edemaand improve vision, which is a worthy recommendation in treating the diabeticmacular edema.2.The intravitreal injection of TA, Lucentis or TA with Lucentis revealed obviouseffect and safety for the treatment of diabetic macular edema. The group combined TAand Lucentis showed more significantly effection.