论文部分内容阅读
目的:对准分子激光屈光性角膜切削术(photorefractivekeratectomy,PRK)和准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术(laserinsitukeratomeleusis,LASIK)联合可蚀盘矫治远视进行观察比较。方法:使用可蚀盘联合三棱镜抛光技术,对25例患者40只远视眼(PRK16眼,LASIK24眼)进行矫治。术前屈光度(+1.62～+6.25)D。对两种术式屈光度、视力等进行比较。结果:随访时间12个月。最佳矫正远视力丢失两行以上PRK组2眼(12.5%),LASIK组3眼(12.5%);最佳矫正近视力丢失两行以上PRK组1眼(6.3%),LASIK组2眼(8.3%)。平均裸眼远视力PRK组为0.55,LASIK组为0.68;而平均裸眼近视力PRK组为0.66,LASIK组为0.85。残余屈光度在-1.00D～+1.00D之间PRK组12眼(75.0%),LASIK组20眼(83.3%)。平均回退量术后1～3个月,PRK组为0.95D,LASIK组为0.76D;术后3～6个月,两组分别为0.35和0.08D;术后6～12个月,两组分别为-0.22和0.00D。在各阶段中两种术式比较差异均有显著意义。结论:使用可蚀盘联合三棱镜矫治远视是安全的,PRK与LASIK两者方法均可获得满意的远期疗效。但LASIK较PRK更容易稳定且有效性和预测性更好。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of laser ablation laser photocoagulation (PRK) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) with erodable disc correction hyperopia. Methods: Erasable disc combined with prism prisms was used to treat 40 patients with hyperopia (PRK16, LASIK24) in 25 patients. Preoperative refraction (+ 1.62 ~ + 6.25) D. The two types of surgical refraction, visual acuity were compared. Results: The follow-up time was 12 months. In the best correction group, 2 eyes (12.5%) in PRK group and 3 eyes (12.5%) in LASIK group had more than two rows of loss of vision loss; 1 case (6.3%) in PRK group and 2 eyes in LASIK group 8.3%). The average open-eye distance vision was 0.55 in the PRK group and 0.68 in the LASIK group, while the average open-eye near-vision PRK group was 0.66 and in the LASIK group 0.85. Residual refraction was between -1.00D and + 1.00D in 12 eyes (75.0%) in PRK group and 20 eyes (83.3%) in LASIK group. The average withdrawal amount was 1 to 3 months after operation in the PRK group and the LASIK group, 0.95D and 0.76D respectively, with a mean of 0.35 and 0.08D in the 3 to 6 months after operation. After 6 and 12 months, Groups were -0.22 and 0.00D, respectively. In each stage of the two surgical differences were significant. Conclusion: It is safe to use eroded disc combined with prism to treat hyperopia. Both PRK and LASIK can achieve satisfactory long-term results. However, LASIK is more stable and more effective and predictive than PRK.