单眼部分遮盖与双眼交替遮盖治疗屈光不正性弱视的疗效比较

目的单眼部分遮盖与双眼交替遮盖治疗屈光不正性弱视的疗效。方法经散瞳验光后按纳入和排除标准筛选出106例（205眼）屈光不正性弱视患儿，按随机对照原则将研究对象分成两组，分别用单眼部分遮盖（4～8h／d）和双眼交替遮盖（3～5h／d）进行治疗，各组都同时辅以增视能视觉训练，6个月后，分别在两组患儿中按弱视程度（轻度、中度、重度）比较两种遮盖方法对视力的提升效果。同时比较两种遮盖方法对屈光不正性弱视双眼视功能（融舍范围和立体视锐度）的改善情况。结果单眼部分遮盖组与双眼交替遮盖组使轻度、中度、重度弱视眼视力进步的有效率均无显著差异（P〉0．05）。对比两种方法治疗前后水平融合范围扩大5°的人数及立体视锐度SA≤60″人数变化，均差异明显（P〈0．05）。结论单眼部分遮盖对屈光不正性弱视视力提升效果与双眼交替遮盖基本一致，但对双眼视功能（融合功能，立体视觉）的改善优于后者，说明单眼部分遮盖更有利于患儿双眼视的恢复。

Part-time occlusion to alternate occlusion compared for the treatment of ametropic amblyopia

Objective To explore and compare the elect between part-time occlusion and alternate occlusion for the treatment of ametropic amblyopia. Methods The prospective study is conducted on 106 children （ages 3 to 7 years） with ametropie amblyopia who had been randomly divided into the part-time occlusion （4 to 8 hours one day）group and the al- ternate occlusion group , at the same time, all patients were trained by Zengshineng. After 6 months, we compared the effect（the improvement of visual acuity and . binocular vison）between the two methods. Results After the statistical a- nalysis, the recovery rate of visual acuity shows no significant difference between the two methods groups（P~0. 05）, while in improving binocular vison the differences are significant between the two methods（P〈0.05）. Conclusion The effect of the two methods in improving visual acuity is consistent and part-time occlusion is superior to alternate occlusion in improving binocular vison.