Suppr超能文献

对于中心区保存的糖尿病性黄斑水肿的局灶性光凝治疗效果,是否应该扩大中心区受累的定义?

Should the outcome of focal photocoagulation for center-sparing diabetic macular edema require expanding the definition of center involvement?

机构信息

Research Direction, Hospital Juarez de Mexico, Mexico, Mexico.

Research Division, Hospital Juarez de Mexico, Mexico, Mexico.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2019 Mar 26;9(1):5164. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-41612-4.

Abstract

Photocoagulation may still be a therapeutic choice for center-sparing diabetic macular edema. We compared the visual evolution after photocoagulation, in eyes with focal diabetic macular edema, stratified per the location of thickening with optical coherence tomography. We evaluated people with type 2 diabetes and focal diabetic macular edema, before and three weeks after focal photocoagulation. We divided the sample by edema location: central (group1); paracentral (group 2) and pericentral (group 3) and compared the proportions of eyes with baseline visual impairment, visual improvement, and visual deterioration between groups; central edema was evaluated with logistic regression, as an explaining variable of baseline visual impairment and visual improvement. The study included 160 eyes: 77 in group 1, 20 in group 2, 63 in group 3; baseline visual impairment was more frequent in groups 1 and 2 (52.6%) than in group 3 (28.6%, p = 0.002, OR 2.77) and as common in groups 1 (51.9%) and 2 (55.0%, p = 0.8). The proportions of visual improvement and visual deterioration did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). The outcome after focal photocoagulation was similar in paracentral (considered center-sparing) and central macular edema; the definition of center involvement, which needs intravitreal antiangiogenics, should expand to include paracentral thickening.

摘要

激光光凝治疗可能仍然是中心保存性糖尿病黄斑水肿的治疗选择。我们通过光学相干断层扫描(OCT)根据增厚部位对糖尿病性黄斑水肿的局灶性病变进行分层,比较了激光光凝治疗后视力的演变。我们评估了 2 型糖尿病合并局灶性糖尿病黄斑水肿患者在局灶性激光光凝治疗前和治疗后 3 周的视力。我们根据水肿位置将样本分为三组:中心(第 1 组);旁中心(第 2 组)和近中心(第 3 组),并比较各组间基线视力障碍、视力改善和视力恶化的眼比例;使用逻辑回归评估中心性水肿,作为基线视力障碍和视力改善的解释变量。该研究共纳入 160 只眼:第 1 组 77 只,第 2 组 20 只,第 3 组 63 只;第 1 组和第 2 组(52.6%)的基线视力障碍比第 3 组(28.6%)更常见(p=0.002,OR 2.77),第 1 组(51.9%)和第 2 组(55.0%)与第 3 组相似(p=0.8)。各组间视力改善和视力恶化的比例无差异(p>0.05)。旁中心(认为是中心保存性)和中心性黄斑水肿激光光凝治疗的结果相似;中心受累的定义,需要玻璃体腔内抗血管生成药物治疗,应扩大到包括旁中心增厚。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5309/6435706/a265641e6df1/41598_2019_41612_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验