论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较中低度近视智能脉冲技术辅助下经上皮准分子激光角膜切削术(SMART)与经上皮准分子激光角膜切削术(TransPRK)的手术效果。方法:回顾性研究。以洛阳市第三人民医院2018年6月至2019年11月中低度近视80例(160眼)为研究对象，分为SMART组与TransPRK组，各40例。分别采用SMART和TransPRK。比较术后两组各项指标。随访3个月。结果:术后UCVA均优于术前BCVA(n P<0.05)，但两组间术后UCVA差异均无统计学意义(n t＝0.358，n P＝0.722)；眼部舒适度评分SMART组均优于TransPRK组(n t＝3.800，n P<0.05)；术后刺激症状持续时间及角膜上皮修复时间SMART组均短于TransPRK组(n t＝4.490，n P<0.05；n t＝4.435，n P<0.05)。n 结论:SMART与TransPRK手术恢复视力效果相当，但SMART术后眼部舒适度较高，刺激症状持续时间较短，角膜上皮修复较快。“,”Objective:To compare the efficacy between Smart Pulse Technology TransPRK (SMART) and TransPRK for low to moderate myopia.Methods:This was a retrospective study. A total of 160 eyes of 80 cases with low to moderate myopia from Jun. 2018 to Nov. 2019 in Luoyang Manicipal Third People’s Hospital were selected, and they were divided into SMART group with 40 cases and TransPRK group with 40 cases.The SMART group was treated with SMART, and the TransPRK group was treated with TransPRK. The index after surgery between the two groups were compared. The follow-up time was 3 months.Results:The UCVA after surgery were both better than preoperative BCVA (all n P<0.05). The difference was not statistically significant in postoperative UCVA between the two groups(n t=0.358, n P=0.722). The comfort scores in the SMART group were significantly lower than those in the TransPRK group (n t=3.800, n P<0.05). The duration of postoperative irritation symptoms and corneal epithelial repair time in the SMART group were shorter than those in the TransPRK group (n t=4.490, n P<0.05;n t=4.435, n P<0.05).n Conclusion:SMART and TransPRK surgery have similar efficacy in restoring vision, but SMART surgery has better eye comfort, shorter duration of irritation symptom, and faster corneal epithelial repair.