Prognostic factors of short-term outcomes of intravitreal ranibizumab in diabetic macular edema

AIM: To evaluate the prognostic factors for short-term visual and anatomical improvement of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) for diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: Fifty-one eyes from 35 patients that received three consecutive monthly IVR for DME with moderate visual loss were retrospectively recruited; all cases had their baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between 20/400 and 20/40. BCVA and central subfield thickness (CST) at baseline and month 3 were collected. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate the prognostic factors for visual and anatomical improvement at month 3. RESULTS: Younger age, poorer baseline BCVA and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) were correlated with better visual improvement at month 3 (P=0.002, 0.0001 and 0.007, respectively). Thicker CST and the presence of subretinal fluid at baseline were correlated with a greater reduction in CST (P<0.0001 and P=0.018, respectively). The presence of epiretinal membrane or previous posterior subtenon injection of triamcinolone acetonide (PSTA) were associated with a smaller reduction in CST (P=0.029 and 0.018, respectively), but had no significant effects in visual improvement at month 3 (P>0.05 for both). CONCLUSION: For eyes with DME and moderate visual loss, those with younger age, poorer baseline BCVA or PDR tend to have better visual improvement after three consecutive monthly IVR. Epiretinal membrane or previous PSTA result in less resolution of CST, but do not significantly affect visual improvement.     

雷珠单抗联合577nm激光黄斑格栅光凝治疗重度糖尿病黄斑水肿

目的:评价雷珠单抗玻璃体腔注射联合577 nm激光黄斑格栅光凝(MGP)治疗重度糖尿病黄斑水肿(DME)的临床疗效.方法:将38例53眼重度DME患者随机分为联合治疗组(20例28眼)和单纯注药组(18例25眼).所有病例均接受每月1次,连续3次的雷珠单抗玻璃体腔注射(初始治疗),此后每月复查,根据病情需要可给予再次玻璃体腔注射(PRN治疗).联合治疗组患者第3次注射后1 mo内给予577nm激光MGP治疗.随访12mo,观察两组患者ETDRS视力及黄斑中心视网膜厚度(CMT)变化,并比较初始治疗后两组患者的注射次数及重复治疗率.结果:治疗后3、6、9、12 mo平均BCVA与基线相比,联合治疗组分别提高7.6±7.9、7.2±6.1、8.3±6.6、7.9±7.1,单纯注药组分别提高8.5±5.8、7.5±6.4、8.4±8.1、6.5±6.3;平均CMT与基线比较,联合治疗组分别降低131±162、108±131、115±129、126±157μm,单纯注药组分别降低129±117、96±117、104±135、101±112μm,两组结果无统计学差异(P>0.05).初始治疗后,联合治疗组患者平均再注药0.87±1.35次,单纯注药组平均再注药2.96±2.07次,差异有显著统计学意义(t=1.714,P<0.01);联合治疗组中43%患者需进行重复注射,而单纯注药组患者重复注射率为84%,两组结果有显著统计学差异(t=1.385,P<0.01).结论:577 nm激光MGP联合雷珠单抗玻璃体腔注射可有效改善DME,提高患者视力,与单纯雷珠单抗注射相比,可明显减少注射次数及重复治疗率.     

玻璃体腔内注射雷珠单抗联合黄斑格栅样光凝治疗糖尿病黄斑水肿

目的：评价玻璃体腔内注射雷珠单抗（ ranibizumab ）联合黄斑格栅样光凝治疗糖尿病黄斑水肿的临床价值。 方法：确诊为糖尿病黄斑水肿的患者60例60眼按照随机原则分为两组：单纯注药组30例30眼,行玻璃体腔内雷珠单抗注射;联合治疗组30例30眼,先行玻璃体腔内雷珠单抗注射,再于注药1 wk后行黄斑格栅样光凝。观察两组治疗后最佳矫正视力（ BCVA ）,光学相干断层扫描（ OCT ）显示的黄斑中心凹厚度（ CMT ）及术后并发症等。 结果：单纯注药组治疗后4,8,12 wk 的 BCVA 分别为0.390±0.075,0.367±0.088,0.319±0.064,CMT分别为221.63±112.34,337.73±99.56,432.92±100.46μm,与治疗前相比效果明显,但治疗后随访期间BCVA呈现下降趋势,CMT呈现上升趋势。而联合治疗组治疗后4,8,12wk的BCVA分别为0.385±0.036,0.382±0.079,0.377±0.097,CMT分别为249.77±106.55,270.40±92.88,275.84±97.34μm,可见治疗后效果满意,且随访期间疗效保持平稳。治疗后8,12 wk联合治疗组BCVA及CMT均优于单纯治疗组（P〈0.05）。 结论：玻璃体腔内注射雷珠单抗能够有效提高糖尿病黄斑水肿患者的视力,降低黄斑中心凹厚度,联合黄斑格栅样光凝治疗更能保证疗效稳定而持久。     

高密度微脉冲激光联合玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿

目的 观察高密度微脉冲激光联合玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿(diabetic macular edema,DME)的疗效.方法 将31例(31眼)DME患者分2组,A组15例(15眼)行高密度微脉冲激光联合玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗治疗;B组16例(16眼)仅行玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗治疗.观察治疗前后黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度(central macular thickness,CMT)、最佳矫正视力(best corrected visual acuity,BCVA),以及两组各自雷珠单抗的年平均注射次数.结果 雷珠单抗年注射次数:A组为(3.67±1.11)次,B组为(9.12±2.63)次,两组相比差异有统计学意义(t=2.05,P＜0.05).两组治疗后CMT均较治疗前降低,差异均有统计学意义(均为P ＜0.05),但两组治疗前后CMT差值比较差异无统计学意义(t=1.19,P＞O.05).两组治疗后BCVA均较治疗前有所改善,且差异均有统计学意义(均为P＜0.05),但两组之间治疗前后BCVA相比差异均无统计学意义(均为P ＞0.05).结论 高密度微脉冲激光联合玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗与单纯玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗均可有效治疗DME,但前者可以明显减少雷珠单抗的注射次数,患者依从性较好,是治疗DME的一种较好选择.     

玻璃体腔注射抗血管内皮生长因子联合激光光凝治疗糖尿病黄斑水肿

目的：观察糖尿病黄斑水肿采取玻璃体腔注射抗血管内皮生长因子药物联合激光光凝的疗效及安全性。

方法：回顾性分析86例102眼糖尿病黄斑水肿患者临床资料,随机分为2组,对照组采取激光光凝治疗; 观察组于对照组基础上加用璃体腔注射抗血管内皮生长因子治疗：麻醉后行常规消毒铺巾,角膜缘后3.5～4mm进针,缓慢注射康栢西普0.05mL,并压迫、包眼。比较两组疗效,并统计两组不良反应。

结果：治疗后两组视力均改善,且观察组视力情况优于对照组(P<0.05); 治疗后观察组总有效率90.9%,高于对照组76.6%(P<0.05); 两组治疗后黄斑中心视网膜厚度(CRT)、黄斑总体积(TMV)水平均降低,且观察组治疗后CRT、TMV水平均低于对照组(P<0.05); 两组不良反应比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论：糖尿病黄斑水肿采用玻璃体腔注射抗血管内皮生长因子药物联合激光光凝治疗疗效较佳,可降低黄斑中心视网膜厚度、距黄斑中心凹6mm范围内黄斑总体积,且应用安全。     

Effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema in vitrectomized versus non-vitrectomized eyes: a Meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) for diabetic macular edema (DME) in vitrectomized versus non-vitrectomized eyes. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, EBSCO were comprehensively searched for studies comparing vitrectomized and non-vitrectomized eyes with DME. Clinical outcomes of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), the mean number of intravitreal injection and adverse events were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Six studies involving 641 eyes were included. Final visual gain significantly improved and CMT significantly reduced in vitrectomized eyes at 6mo and 12mo visits (P<0.05). Although the mean reduction in CMT among non-vitrectomized eyes was significantly greater than in vitrectomized eyes at the 6mo [mean difference (MD)=53.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 28.03 to 78.72, P<0.0001] and 12mo (MD=49.65, 95%CI: 19.58 to 79.72, P=0.01), no significant difference was detected in improvement in BCVA at either 6mo (MD=0.05, 95%CI: -0.02 to 0.13, P=0.14) or 12mo (MD=0.03, 95%CI: -0.04 to 0.09, P=0.43). Injection number of ranibizumab in non-vitrectomized eyes was significantly less than that in vitrectomized eyes during 6-month period (MD=0.60, 95%CI: 0.16 to 1.04, P=0.008), while there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups during 12mo of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Evidence from current study suggests that IVR was useful for both vitrectomized group and non-vitrectomized group with DME. Although less reduction in macular thickness is found in vitrectomized group, visual improvement between two groups is similar.     

Comparison of intravitreal bevacizumab with macular photocoagulation for treatment of diabetic macular edema:a systemic review and Meta-analysis

AIM: To further evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) versus macular photocoagulation (MPC) in treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) by Meta-analysis.METHODS: Pertinent publications were identified through systemic searches of PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to 30 November, 2013. Changes in central macular thickness (CMT) in μm and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in logMAR equivalents were extracted at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24mo after initial treatment, and a Meta-analysis was carried out to compare results between groups receiving IVB and MPC.RESULTS:Five randomized controlled trial (RCTs) and one high-quality comparative study were identified and included. Our Meta-analysis revealed that both IVB and MPC resulted in the improvements of CMT and BCVA in eyes with DME at 1mo after initial treatment, with IVB being significantly superior to MPC (P=0.01 and 0.02, respectively). The improvements of both measure outcomes at 3, 6, 12 and 24mo after treatment did not vary significantly between the IVB groups and MPC groups (CMT at 3mo, P=0.85; at 6mo, P=0.29; at 12mo, P=0.56; at 24mo, P=0.71; BCVA at 3mo, P=0.31; at 6mo, P= 0.30; at 12mo, P=0.23; at 24mo, P=0.52). However, the number of observed adverse events was low in all studies.CONCLUSION: Current evidence shows IVB treatment trends to be more effective in improvements of macular edema and vision in eyes with DME at an earlier follow up (1mo) compared with MPC. At other time, both interventions have comparable efficacy without statistical significances.     

雷珠单抗联合激光光凝治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿的疗效

目的：研究雷珠单抗联合激光光凝治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿(diabetic macular edema,DME)的临床疗效。

方法：选取2014-06/2016-06于我院治疗的190例190眼DME患者的病历资料进行回顾性分析。将单独使用雷珠单抗玻璃体腔注射治疗的90例90眼患者设为对照组,在此基础上联合视网膜激光光凝治疗的100例100眼患者设为观察组。比较两组患者术前、术后最佳矫正视力(best corrected visual acuity,BCVA); 光学相干断层扫描(optical coherence tomography,OCT)测量黄斑中心凹厚度(central macular thickness,CMT); 眼底血管造影(fundus fluorescein angiography,FFA)评价两组患者黄斑水肿渗漏情况; 比较两组患者注药次数; 随访统计并发症发生情况。随访12mo。

结果：观察组治疗后平均BCVA分数均显著高于术前,对照组治疗后1、3、6、12mo显著高于术前,治疗后6、12mo组间比较差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05),治疗后1、3mo组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05); 两组患者治疗后CMT均显著降低,且治疗后1、3、6、12mo观察组显著低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05); 末次随访观察组无黄斑水肿渗漏率为45.0%,显著高于对照组(30.0%),差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05); 观察组注药次数显著低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05); 两组患者术后均无明显并发症。

结论：联合视网膜激光光凝治疗相较于单独采用雷珠单抗治疗,可改善远期视力和黄斑水肿,减少注药次数,且降低CMT效果更佳。     

Comparison of conbercept and ranibizumab for the treatment efficacy of diabetic macular edema: a Meta-analysis and systematic review

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal injection of conbercept (IVC) and ranibizumab (IVR) in patients with diabetic macular edema. METHODS: Reviewers have searched 12 databases, including PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Springer, ScienceDirect, OVID, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, cqVIP, WanFangdata and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), up to December 28, 2018. RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane Library Software, Oxford, UK) was employed for statistical analysis. Fixed and random effects models were applied to assess heterogeneity. Odds ratio (OR) was applied for dichotomous variables; weighted mean difference (WMD) was applied for continuous variables. The confidence interval (CI) was set at 95%. Central macular thickness (CMT) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were employed to analyze the improvement of DME patients. Inclusion criteria for picking out studies were retrospective studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IVC and IVR for the treatment of diabetic macular edema. RESULTS: Four retrospective studies and five RCTs were included with a total of 609 patients. No statistically significant difference was observed in mean CMT and mean BCVA in the baseline parameters [BCVA (WMD: -0.48; 95%CI: -1.06 to 0.10; P=0.1), CMT (WMD: -0.83; 95%CI: -15.15 to 13.49; P=0.91). No significant difference was found in the improvement of BCVA and adverse event (AE) in IVC group, compared with IVR group after treatment of loading dosage [the 1st month BCVA (WMD: 0.01; 95%CI: -0.26 to 0.27; P=0.96), the 3rd month BCVA (WMD: -0.04; 95%CI: -0.14 to 0.06; P=0.46); the 6th month BCVA (WMD: -0.24; 95%CI: -1.62 to 1.14; P=0.73)], AE (OR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.38 to 1.84; P=0.66)]. A slight difference was found in the effectiveness rate (OR: 1.70; 95%CI: 0.97 to 2.96; P=0.06), There were statistically significant differences between IVC and IVR treatment in terms of CMT [1st month CMT (WMD: -19.88; 95%CI: -27.94 to -11.82; P<0.001), 3rd month CMT (WMD: -23.31; 95%CI: -43.30 to -3.33; P=0.02), 6th month CMT (WMD: -74.74; 95%CI: -106.22 to -43.26; P<0.001)]. CONCLUSION: Pooled evidence suggests that both IVC and IVR are effective in the therapy of diabetic macular edema and affirms that IVC presents superiority over IVR therapy in regard of CMT in patients with diabetic macular edema, but no statistically significant difference with regard to visual improvement. Relevant RCTs with longer-term follow-up are necessary to back up our conclusion.     

黄斑区格栅样光凝单独或联合雷珠单抗治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿

目的:探讨黄斑区格栅样光凝单独或联合雷珠单抗治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿效果的临床研究.方法:自2012-12/2015-06于广宁人民医院眼科门诊就诊及住院患者中,筛选出非增殖期合并具有临床意义的黄斑水肿78例78眼,随机分为联合组及单独治疗组,联合组(n=41)行玻璃体腔雷珠单抗0.02mL注射后lOd行黄斑区格栅样光凝治疗;单独组(n=37)仅行黄斑区格栅样光凝治疗.对两组患者治疗后6mo内最佳矫正视力、黄斑区中心凹厚度进行观察随访及比较.结果:两组患者在随访结束时,联合组患者治疗有效率明显高于激光组,行秩和检验后得出差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05).治疗后6mo联合组与单独组黄斑中心视网膜厚度(central macular thickness,CMT)均较治疗前下降(P＜0.05);两组间对比,在术后1、3、6mo有显著统计学差异(P＜0.05).黄斑区格栅样光凝单独或联合雷珠单抗玻璃体腔内注射治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿均能提高视力及改善黄斑水肿情况.但联合治疗效果明显优于单纯激光治疗.结论:在未来的临床工作中,黄斑区格栅样光凝联合雷珠单抗治疗可作为基层医院糖尿病性黄斑水肿的首选治疗方法.     

玻璃体腔内注射雷珠单抗联合激光治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿的疗效

目的：探讨玻璃体腔内注射雷珠单抗联合激光治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿(diabetic macular edema,DME)的临床疗效。

方法：回顾性分析2014-06/2016-06于我院眼科治疗的60例60眼DME患者,按照治疗方式不同分为两组,对照组患者采用激光治疗,观察组患者在此基础上联合玻璃体腔内注射雷珠单抗治疗。比较两组患者治疗前和治疗1wk,1、3、6mo后的最佳矫正视力; 采用非接触式眼压计测量治疗前后眼压; 采用光学相干断层扫描(optical coherence tomography,OCT)测量治疗前后黄斑中心凹厚度(central macular thickness,CMT); 记录两组患者术后并发症发生情况。

结果：两组患者治疗后视力均显著提高; 组间比较：观察组治疗1、3mo后视力均显著高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05); 治疗1wk,6mo后两组间视力差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者治疗后1wk眼压有升高现象,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05); 两组患者治疗前与治疗1、3、6mo后眼压差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者治疗后CMT均显著降低; 观察组治疗1、3mo后CMT显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05); 治疗前与治疗1wk,6mo后两组CMT差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组6mo内复发5例5眼,复发率17%,对照组复发10例10眼,复发率33%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05); 术后2d观察组2例2眼出现高眼压,对照组3例3眼出现高眼压,经卡替洛尔滴眼液治疗后恢复正常。

结论：玻璃体腔内注射雷珠单抗联合激光治疗相较于单独使用激光治疗,短期内能减轻黄斑水肿,视力恢复更快,能够提高治疗的安全性。     

雷珠单抗联合激光光凝治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿的效果分析

目的：：分析糖尿病性黄斑水肿患者采用雷珠单抗药物联合激光光凝治疗的临床效果。方法：收集2014-04/2015-06我院收治的42例72眼糖尿病黄斑水肿患者为研究对象,将患者随机分为观察组与对照组,观察组给予雷珠单抗联合激光光凝治疗,对照组仅给予激光光凝治疗,对比分析两组患者黄斑水肿消退情况、黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度变化情况及视力提高情况。结果：观察组黄斑水肿治疗总有效率为94%,对照组黄斑水肿治疗总有效率为78%,两组数据对比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);治疗前,观察组患者黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度为486.58±85.26μm,对照组患者黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度为479.61±83.37μm,数据无统计学差异( P>0.05);治疗3 mo后,观察组患者黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度为315.85±43.7μm,对照组患者黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度为418.85±46.97μm;治疗6mo后,观察组患者黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度为245.58±25.67μm,对照组患者黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度为369.85±36.48μm,数据差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组视力提高率为78%,对照组视力提高率为50%,数据差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论：糖尿病性黄斑水肿患者采用抗VEGF药物联合激光光凝治疗的临床效果显著,建议在临床上推广。     

血管内皮生长因子抑制剂球内注射治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿

目的:评价玻璃体腔内注射1.25mg avastin治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿(diabetic macular edema,DME)(糖尿病视网膜病变Ⅳ期和中期以上黄斑水肿)的临床效果与安全性。方法:选择我科2009-01/2010-12诊断为视力下降有临床治疗意义的糖尿病病变的患者60例(眼底荧光造影显示糖尿病视网膜病变Ⅳ期,以OCT检查显示中度以上黄斑水肿,黄斑水肿病史不超过3mo)。观察治疗前最佳矫正视力、眼压、裂隙灯及间接检眼镜检查,行彩色眼底照相、FFA,OCT检查。再观察治疗后第1,2,3d;3wk;3,6mo,视力的变化,眼压、晶状体、玻璃体、行眼底荧光造影观察视网膜渗漏情况,用TOPCON 3D-OCT检查术后视网膜的厚度进行比较。结果:玻璃体腔内注射avastin后,患者视力明显提高,视网膜中心黄斑平均厚度明显减低,由术前(395.933±119.784)μm至末次随诊为(314.200±60.528)μm,与术前相比差异有统计学意义。随访中未见眼压的异常改变,未发现白内障的加重,未发现与药物有关的视网膜毒性反应及其他局部和全身不良反应。结论:玻璃体腔内注射avastin糖尿病视网膜病变患者视力稳定提高,黄斑水肿明显消退,必要时可以连续注射治疗,但其远期治疗效果需要大样本的实验来进一步证实。     

玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗联合激光光凝治疗BRVO合并黄斑水肿

目的：观察玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗联合激光光凝治疗视网膜分支静脉阻塞( branch retinal vein occlusion, BRVO)合并黄斑水肿的疗效和安全性。

方法：据荧光素眼底血管造影(FFA)对BRVO合并黄斑水肿患者30例30眼随机分为3组：第1组(10眼)单纯行黄斑区格栅样光凝; 第2组(10眼)玻璃体腔注射1次雷珠单抗0.05mL/0.5mg,7d后行黄斑区格栅样光凝; 第3组(10眼)玻璃体腔连续注射3次雷珠单抗0.05mL/0.5mg,间隔1mo,第1次注射7d后行黄斑区格栅样光凝。随访6mo,观察最佳矫正视力及OCT检查(干涉光断层扫描仪检查)黄斑中央厚度。

结果：患者6mo后视力显著提高, 1组平均提高11个字母,2组提高17个字母,3组提高18个字母。OCT显示1组黄斑中央厚度平均降低208.7μm,2组降低312.9μm,3组降低326.8μm。1组中视力提高3行以上1例(10%),2组有3例(30%),3组有4例(40%)。

结论：联合治疗明显优于单独激光治疗,雷珠单抗1次玻璃体腔内注射联合黄斑区格栅样激光光凝术治疗BRVO并黄斑水肿安全有效。     

雷珠单抗玻璃体内注射与黄斑部格栅样光凝联合治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿的疗效观察

目的　探讨雷珠单抗（ｒａｎｉｂｉｚｕｍａｂ,ＲＺＢ）玻璃体内注射与黄斑部格栅样光凝（ｇｒｉｄｐｈｏｔｏｃｏａｇｕｌａｔｉｏｎ,ＧＰＧ）联合治疗糖尿病黄斑水肿（ｄｉａｂｅｔｉｃｍａｃｕｌａｒｅｄｅｍａ,ＤＭＥ）的疗效。方法　选择我院２０１３年１２月至２０１４年１１月接诊的ＤＭＥ患者８８例。将患者分为单独使用ＧＰＧ治疗的对照组和使用ＲＺＢ联合ＧＰＧ治疗的观察组,对两组患者治疗前后的最佳矫正视力（ｂｅｓｔｃｏｒ－ｒｅｃｔｅｄｖｉｓｕａｌａｃｕｉｔｙ,ＢＣＶＡ）、眼压和黄斑中心凹厚度（ｃｅｎｔｒａｌｍａｃｕｌａｒｔｈｉｃｋｎｅｓｓ,ＣＭＴ）进行比较。结果　治疗２周后,两组ＢＣＶＡ都有所变好,观察组的效果优于对照组,且在１个月和３个月后效果更加明显。在治疗２周后,两组患者的眼压都有所升高;而治疗１个月后对照组的眼压还有升高,但观察组的相对降低;在治疗３个月后,对照组才有降低。两组患者在治疗后ＣＭＴ都有不同程度的降低,观察组在治疗２周、１个月、３个月后分别为（３６６．９９±２９．６１）μｍ、（３４１．７６±３０．１２）μｍ、（３３１．８８±２９．７７）μｍ,较治疗前有降低,且较对照组下降更显著。结论　ＲＺＢ玻璃体内注射联合ＧＰＧ不仅能改善黄斑水肿,短期内提高视力,而且能稳定现存视力,推迟复发时间,在临床治疗ＤＭＥ中值得推广应用。     

玻璃体内注射贝伐单抗联合视网膜激光光凝治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿

目的：探究玻璃体内注射贝伐单抗联合视网膜激光光凝治疗糖尿病黄斑水肿的治疗效果以及分析此方法的安全性。
　　方法：选取2014-02/2015-03期间于我院确诊并治疗的69例82眼糖尿病黄斑水肿,随机平均分为对照组与观察组,每组41眼。观察组患者行玻璃体内注射贝伐单抗联合视网膜激光光凝治疗,对照组行单纯视网膜激光光凝治疗。治疗后观察并对比两组患者最佳矫正视力情况(BCVA)、黄斑中心凹厚度(CMT)、荧光素眼底血管造影改变( FFA)以及眼压变化等并发症情况。
　　结果：观察组于治疗后1、3、6 lo BCVA、CMT较治疗前有明显改善( P<0.05);对照组治疗前后BCVA未见明显提高(P>0.05),CMT较治疗前有所降低(P<0.05),但FFA结果6 lo后反弹。观察组较对照组在BCVA、CMT方面差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05),且两组治疗后1、3、6lo均未发生眼部及全身性并发症。
　　结论：玻璃体内注射贝伐单抗联合视网膜激光光凝治疗糖尿病黄斑水肿治疗效果更优,而且基本无眼部及全身性并发症。     

玻璃体腔注射康柏西普联合黄斑区格栅样光凝治疗DME

目的:观察玻璃体腔注射康柏西普眼用注射液联合黄斑区格栅样光凝治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿(diabetic macular edema,DME)的临床疗效.方法:对DME患者(40例40眼)随机分成试验组和对照组,每组各20例20眼.两组均实施一次黄斑区格栅样光凝治疗,试验组分别在第1次激光时及相隔45d后行玻璃体腔注射康柏西普治疗,比较两组患者激光术后45、90d的黄斑水肿消退情况及视力改变情况.结果:试验组术后45d黄斑厚度为293.90±12.94μm,对照组术后45d黄斑厚度为320.20±29.17μm,两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);试验组术后90d黄斑厚度为265.80±16.26μm,对照组术后90d黄斑厚度为290.15±12.23μm,两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);试验组术后45d最佳矫正视力为0.40±0.08,对照组术后45d最佳矫正视力为0.34±0.04,两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);试验组术后90d最佳矫正视力为0.46±0.09,对照组术后90d最佳矫正视力为0.37±0.06,两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论:玻璃体腔注射康柏西普联合格栅样光凝治疗DME较单纯黄斑区格栅样光凝组能明显提高视力,减轻黄斑水肿,对于延长两次玻璃体腔注射康柏西普间隔时间是否可以更为科学,仍需进一步研究.     

比较单独黄斑局灶/格栅样光凝术和联合雷珠单抗治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿的疗效

目的 比较单用黄斑局灶/格栅样光凝术、玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗(Ranibizuma)及联合黄斑局灶/格栅样光凝术和玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿(diabetic macular edema,DME)的有效性及安全性.方法 选取2012年1月至2013年6月南阳市中心医院收治的102例(102眼)DME患者,随机分为单纯黄斑局灶/格栅样光凝术组(A组)、单纯玻璃体内注射泪珠单抗组(B组)和黄斑局灶/格栅样光凝术联合玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗组(C组).分别于术前、术后3个月、6个月、12个月行最佳矫正视力(best corrected visual acuity,BCVA)、裂隙镜、眼压、光学相干断层扫描、眼底荧光血管造影等检查,比较三种处理方式的疗效和安全性.结果 三种治疗方式均能改善DME患者BCVA、黄斑中心凹厚度(central macular thickness,CMT)、视网膜新生血管(retinal neovascularization,RNV)渗漏,但B、C组疗效优于A组(P＜0.05).B、C组患者BCVA改善情况差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),但C组患者CMT及RNV渗漏改善情况优于B组(P ＜0.000 1),表现出更理想且持久的治疗效果[BCVA:0.250 0±0.094 1;CMT:(-162.40±26.34)μm;RNV渗漏面积:(-19.63±4.87)mm2],且无光凝术及雷珠单抗相关的并发症发生.结论 黄斑局灶/格栅样光凝术联合玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗能迅速减轻DME及新生血管形成,从而提高患者视力,其疗效优于单纯黄斑局灶/格栅样光凝术和联合雷珠单抗.     

糖尿病性黄斑水肿的激光治疗

目的观察激光治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿（DME）的疗效。设计回顾性临床研究。研究对象DME患者97例（133眼），其中局限水肿92眼，弥漫性水肿41眼。方法局限水肿行微血管瘤或扩张的毛细血管直接光凝。弥漫水肿行C形格栅或环形格栅光凝。主要指标视力和眼底荧光素血管造影。结果局限水肿中视力提高19眼（20．7％），视力不变63眼（68．5％），视力下降10眼（10．9％）。弥漫水肿中视力提高3眼（7．3％），视力不变27眼（65．9％），视力下降11眼（26.8％）（两组视力变化，χ^2=3．653，P=0．056）。局限水肿中水肿消退24眼（26．1％），水肿减轻48眼（52．2％），水肿未退20眼（21．7％）。弥漫水肿中水肿消退5眼（12．2％），水肿减轻18眼（43．9％），水肿未退18眼（43．9％）（两组水肿消退，）[χ^2=6．826，P=0．009）。结论激光治疗DME有效，局限性黄斑水肿比弥漫性黄斑水肿效果好。     

激光光凝联合雷珠单抗治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿

目的：比较激光光凝与激光光凝联合雷珠单抗治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿的疗效。

方法：随机对照研究。纳入糖尿病性黄斑水肿患者134例180眼,随机分为试验组和对照组。两组患者年龄、性别、病程、BCVA、IOP、CMT均无差异(P>0.05)。试验组接受黄斑格栅光凝联合玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗,对照组接受黄斑格栅光凝。治疗后1wk,3mo测量两组BCVA、IOP、CMT并进行比较。

结果：治疗前、治疗后1wk,3mo,两组IOP比较均无差异(P>0.05)。治疗1wk,3mo,试验组CMT均低于对照组(t=-7.83、-8.80,均P<0.05)。治疗1wk,3mo,试验组BCVA均优于对照组(t=-3.76、-4.09,均P<0.05),治疗1wk试验组BCVA即显著提高(t=1.97,P<0.05)。试验组复发率低于对照组(χ²=4.59,P=0.032)。两组早期高眼压发生率无差异(χ²=0.03,P=0.87)。均未出现视网膜脱离、眼内炎。

结论：激光光凝联合雷珠单抗比单用激光光凝显著降低术后CMT,并较早提高BCVA,降低复发率。