Xu Wei-Wei, Huang Yi-Fei, Wang Li-Qiang, Zhang Mao-Nian
Department of Ophthalmology, Chinese Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100853, China.
Int J Ophthalmol. 2013 Apr 18;6(2):187-92. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2013.02.16. Print 2013.
To compare the effects and complications of direct cyclopexy (DC) versus vitrectomy, endophotocoagulation, and gas/silicone oil endotamponade (VEE) treatment in patients with cyclodialysis and persistent hypotony.
This is a prospective, comparative, nonrandomized clinical trial which includes 52 patients with cyclodialysis and persisting hypotony. Fifty-two patients suffering from cyclodialysis and persistent hypotony in one eye were divided into 2 groups (groups DC and VEE) and treated, respectively, with direct cyclopexy or vitrectomy, endophotocoagulation, and gas/silicone oil endotamponade. The patients were followed up for 12 months. Assessments included best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), anterior chamber depth (ACD), anterior chamber volume (ACV) and subjective rating of the pain caused by the treatments.
After a follow-up of 12 months, significant improvement was seen in postoperative mean BCVA, IOP, ACD and ACV in both treatment groups (which were not significantly different from each other). The success rates for the treatments were not significantly different (DC: 50.0% vs VEE: 62.5%, P=0.383). Postoperative morbidity of cataract and subjective pain rating were significantly higher in the VEE group vs the DC group (P= 0.003 and P<0.001 respectively).
DC and VEE were effective surgical procedures in treating patients with cyclodialysis and persistent hypotony. Patients had better tolerance to DC treatment and VEE was more likely lead to cataract complications. Taking into consideration the ease of the operation, success rate, and patient comfort, DC treatment seems preferable to VEE treatment in patients with simple cyclodialysis. While VEE has the advantage of treating patients with cyclodialysis combined with vitreous hemorrhage.
比较直接睫状体固定术(DC)与玻璃体切除术、眼内光凝术及气体/硅油眼内填充术(VEE)治疗睫状体脱离和持续性低眼压患者的疗效及并发症。
这是一项前瞻性、比较性、非随机临床试验,纳入52例睫状体脱离和持续性低眼压患者。将52例单眼睫状体脱离和持续性低眼压患者分为2组(DC组和VEE组),分别采用直接睫状体固定术或玻璃体切除术、眼内光凝术及气体/硅油眼内填充术进行治疗。对患者进行12个月的随访。评估指标包括最佳矫正视力(BCVA)、眼压(IOP)、前房深度(ACD)、前房容积(ACV)以及治疗引起的疼痛主观评分。
随访12个月后,两个治疗组术后平均BCVA、IOP、ACD和ACV均有显著改善(两组之间无显著差异)。两种治疗方法的成功率无显著差异(DC组:50.0% vs VEE组:62.5%,P = 0.383)。VEE组白内障术后发病率和主观疼痛评分显著高于DC组(分别为P = 0.003和P < 0.001)。
DC和VEE是治疗睫状体脱离和持续性低眼压患者的有效手术方法。患者对DC治疗的耐受性更好,而VEE更易导致白内障并发症。综合考虑手术的简便性、成功率和患者舒适度,对于单纯睫状体脱离患者,DC治疗似乎优于VEE治疗。而VEE在治疗合并玻璃体出血的睫状体脱离患者方面具有优势。