激光疏通泪道后注药与植入硅胶棒的疗效比较

目的比较Nd:YAG激光泪道疏通治疗阻塞性泪道疾病术后植入硅胶棒与注药两种方法的效果。方法A组363例,激光疏通泪道后植入硅胶棒留置2月。B组120例,激光疏通泪道后注入典必殊药膏。复发的患者行第二、三次治疗,B组进行3次后复发者改为A组方法。对最终治疗效果进行综合分析。结果第一次治疗后,A组284例治愈、占78.24%,B组61例治愈、占50.83%。二者有显著性差异(P<0.01)。失败患者经第二或第三次治疗后,A组324治愈、占89.26%。B组74例治愈、占61.67%。A、B二组有显著性差异。B组失败患者改为A组方法进行激光泪道疏通并植入硅胶棒后则总治愈110例,总治愈率达到91.67%。结论激光治疗泪道阻塞疗效较好,且安全简便,可重复治疗,结合硅胶棒植入有利于提高疗效。

Effect comparison of silica-gel cone implant and disemboguing drug after laser deoppilation of lacrimal ducts obstruction

Objective To evaluate and compare the effects of silica-gel cone implant and disembogu-ing drug after laser deoppilation of lacrimal ducts obstruction.Methods In group A,363 eyes with obstruction of lacrimal ducts were implanted silica-gel cone for 2 months after laser deoppilation. In group B,120 eyes with obstruction of lacrimal ducts were disembogued TobraDex after laser deoppilation. Recurrence patients were subjected to 2nd and 3rd time of treatment;if recurred after 3rd time of treatment in group B, the patients be treated with the methods used in group A. The ultimate results were analyzed collectively.Results After the first time of treatment, 284 eyes were cured in group A(78.24%),61 eyes were cured in group B(50.83%). There were significant diference between the two groups(P<0.01).Among the patients to 2nd or 3rd time of treatment 324 eyes in group A(89.26%),74 eyes in group B(61.67%) were cured, there was significant diference between the two groups,too. Recurrence patients after 3rd time of treatment in group B,turned to receive the metnods used in group A, total 110 eyes were cured (91.67%). Conclusion Laser deoppilation is effective, convenient in lacrimal ducts obstruction treatment, combined with silica-gel cone implant would obtain a better effect.