Suppr超能文献

亚阈值黄色微脉冲激光治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿:固定治疗方案与变量治疗方案的比较。

Subthreshold yellow micropulse laser for treatment of diabetic macular edema: Comparison between fixed and variable treatment regimen.

机构信息

University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

出版信息

Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021 May;31(3):1254-1260. doi: 10.1177/1120672120915169. Epub 2020 Apr 14.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy between fixed and variable treatment regimens of subthreshold yellow micropulse laser for the treatment of diabetic macular edema.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, comparative, 12-month study of 39 eyes: 24 eyes received fixed treatment regimen of subthreshold micropulse laser treatment and 15 eyes underwent variable treatment regimen of subthreshold micropulse laser, all eyes were followed up for 12 months. Subthreshold micropulse laser was performed with the following parameters: 100 μm spot size on slit lamp, 5% duty cycle of 0.2 s, and 250 mW power. To choose the power of the variable treatment regimen of subthreshold micropulse laser group, continuous laser power was titrated to a barely visible burn and then switched to MicroPulse mode, multiplying the test burn power by 4 and using a 5% duty cycle of 0.2 s. Main outcomes included changes in central macular thickness and best-corrected visual acuity.

RESULTS

At baseline, the mean LogMAR best-corrected visual acuity was 0.297 ± 0.431 in the variable treatment regimen of subthreshold micropulse laser group and 0.228 ± 0.341 in the fixed treatment regimen of subthreshold micropulse laser group. At the end of follow-up, the mean LogMAR best-corrected visual acuity was 0.289 ± 0.473 (p = 0.785) and 0.245 ± 0.376 (p = 0.480) in the variable and fixed treatment regimens of subthreshold micropulse laser groups, respectively. Similarly, central macular thickness decreased in both groups after treatment; at baseline, the mean central macular thickness was 371.06 ± 37.8 in the variable treatment regimen of subthreshold micropulse laser group and improved to 325.60 ± 110.0 μm (p = 0.025) at the end of the follow-ups, while it was 342.30 ± 35.4 in the fixed treatment regimen of subthreshold micropulse laser group and improved to 308.51 ± 67.5 (p = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

Both treatment regimens are effective for the treatment of mild center-involving diabetic macular edema: fixed treatment appears more suitable minimizing treatment time and reducing the possible errors due to wrong titration in the switch from continuous to micropulse mode.

摘要

目的

比较亚阈黄色微脉冲激光固定与可变治疗方案治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿的疗效。

方法

这是一项回顾性、对照、12 个月的研究,共纳入 39 只眼:24 只眼接受亚阈微脉冲激光固定治疗方案,15 只眼接受亚阈微脉冲激光可变治疗方案,所有眼均随访 12 个月。亚阈微脉冲激光采用以下参数:裂隙灯下 100μm 光斑,5%占空比 0.2s,250mW 功率。选择可变亚阈微脉冲激光组的功率时,连续激光功率调至可见烧伤,然后切换至微脉冲模式,将测试烧伤功率乘以 4,采用 5%占空比 0.2s。主要结局包括黄斑中心厚度和最佳矫正视力的变化。

结果

基线时,可变亚阈微脉冲激光组平均 LogMAR 最佳矫正视力为 0.297±0.431,固定亚阈微脉冲激光组为 0.228±0.341。随访结束时,可变亚阈微脉冲激光组平均 LogMAR 最佳矫正视力为 0.289±0.473(p=0.785),固定亚阈微脉冲激光组为 0.245±0.376(p=0.480)。同样,两组黄斑中心厚度在治疗后均下降;基线时,可变亚阈微脉冲激光组黄斑中心厚度平均为 371.06±37.8μm,随访结束时改善至 325.60±110.0μm(p=0.025),固定亚阈微脉冲激光组为 342.30±35.4μm,改善至 308.51±67.5μm(p=0.037)。

结论

两种治疗方案均对治疗轻度中心性糖尿病性黄斑水肿有效:固定治疗方案似乎更适合于减少治疗时间,并减少从连续模式切换到微脉冲模式时因错误滴定而产生的可能错误。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验