阿托品压抑法与遮盖法治疗单眼弱视的临床观察  

A clinical trial of atropine penalization vs patching for treatment of monocular amblyopia

作　　者：燕建军[1] 彭辉灿[1] 吴橙香[2] 刘照耀[1] 王俞方[1] 

机构地区：[1]南华大学附属第二医院眼科,中国湖南省衡阳市421001 [2]湖南中医药高等专科学校,中国湖南省株洲市412012

出　　处：《国际眼科杂志》2008年第4期777-778,共2页International Eye Science

摘　　要：目的:探讨阿托品压抑法与遮盖法治疗单眼弱视的临床特点。方法:选择276例单眼弱视儿童,准确验光,充分屈光矫正后随机分为A组(遮盖法)和B组(阿托品压抑法)进行治疗观察。结果:A组总有效率91.1%,B组总有效率85.1%,两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);A组有31.1%患者发生眼位变化,B组为40.1%,两组变化差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);A组与B组依从性分别为83.1%,95.2%;两组健眼均未发生弱视。结论:阿托品压抑法与遮盖法均是治疗弱视的有效方法,两法在治疗效果、眼位变化等临床特点上无显著性差异。阿托品压抑法依从性比遮盖法高,患者容易接受,亦应广泛用于临床。AIM：To compare the clinical characteristics of atropine penalization and patching for treatment of monocular amblyopia.METHODS：In a randomized clinical trial,276 children with monocular amblyopia were divided into groups A（patching）and B（atropine penalization）.RESULTS：The total effective rate in group A and group B were 91.1% and 85.1%,respectively,without significant difference between the two groups（P〉0.05）.Changes at ocular position occurred in 31.3% of patients in group A and 40.1% in group B,repectively,with no significant difference between the two groups either（P〉0.05）.Patients＇ compliance to treatment in groups A and B were 83.1% and 95.2%,respectively.No amblyopia was found in the sound eyes in either of the two groups.CONCLUSION：Atropine penalization and patching are both effective method in treating amblyopia.There are no significant differences in clinical characteristics such as effective rate and ocular position between the two methods.Compliance of patients with atropine penaliza-tion is better than those with patching.Atropine penalization is easy to be accepted by patients and should be widely used in clinic.

关 键 词：阿托品压抑法 遮盖法 弱视 

分 类 号：R777[医药卫生—眼科]