2篇
您的检索式：作者名="Mustafa Elcioglu"
|
|
|
题名
|
作者
|
年代
|
出处
|
被引量
|
| 1 | Comparison of one and three initial monthly intravitreal ranibizumab injection in patients with macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion显示文摘AIM: To compare three initial monthly intravitreal ranibizumab(IVR) injections followed by pro re nata(PRN) dosing with one initial monthly IVR injections followed by PRN dosing for macular edema(ME) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion(BRVO).METHODS: Forty-two eyes of 42 patients who had IVR injections for BRVO were retrospectively studied. Eighteen eyes received 1 initial IVR injection(1+PRN group) and 24 eyes received 3 monthly IVR injections(3+PRN). At 1, 3, 6 and 12mo; spectral-domain optical coherence tomography(SD-OCT) was performed. Central macular thickness(CMT), the integrity of the external limiting membrane(ELM), the presence of subretinal fluid, cyst size, the presence of inner segment/outer segment(IS/OS) defect were determined.RESULTS: At baseline the mean CMT was 521.3±153.2 μm in the 3+PRN group while it was 438.1±162.4 μm in 1+PRN group. At the final visit, mean CMT was 278.3±87.8 μm in the 3+PRN group and 285.2±74.2 μm in the 1+PRN group(P=0.079). The changes in CMT over the entire study period were also comparable in both groups(243±160 μm in the 3+PRN group, and 152.9±175.3 μm in the 1+PRN group; P=0.090). At baseline, best-corrected visual acuity(BCVA) was 0.92±0.60 logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution(logMAR) in the 3+PRN group, while it was 0.72±0.46 logMAR in the 1+PRN group. Final BCVA was 0.42±0.55 logMAR in the 3+PRN group and 0.38±0.50 logMAR in the 1+PRN group(P=0.979). Additionally, the BCVA changes from baseline to final visit were not significantly different(-0.50±0.45 logMAR in the 3+PRN group, and-0.33±0.39 logMAR in the 1+PRN group; P=0.255).CONCLUSION: No significant differences in the anatomical or functional results are found between 3+PRN and 1+PRN regimens in the patients receiving ranibizumab for ME secondary to BRVO. Intact IS/OS and baseline BCVA are good predictor of the visual gain, while baseline CMT is a good predictor of the anatomical gain. | Alper Halil Bayat Akin Cakir Seyma Gülcenur Ozturan Selim Bolükbasi Burak Erden Mustafa Nuri Elcioglu | 2018 | International Journal of Ophthalmology(English edition)2018，11，9： | 6 |
| 2 | 比较雷珠单抗和贝伐珠单抗对新生血管AMD的疗效(英文)显示文摘目的:比较玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗与贝伐珠单抗对年龄相关性黄斑变性(age-related macular degeneration,AMD)的疗效,治疗方案必要时采用。方法:回顾性分析63例63眼(雷珠单抗治疗组35眼,贝伐珠单抗治疗组28眼)新确诊新生血管年龄相关性黄斑变性患者的资料。治疗12mo后随访,分析比较两组患者的最佳矫正视力(BCVA)和黄斑中心凹厚度(CFT)。采用双尾t检验和单因素方差分析比较两组最佳矫正视力和黄斑中心凹厚度的变化。结果:雷珠单抗治疗组35眼和贝伐珠单抗治疗组28眼均完成12mo随访,并记录数据。雷珠单抗治疗组最佳矫正视力均值增加0.1logMAR;相反,贝伐珠单抗治疗组最佳矫正视力均值下降0.06logMAR(P=0.01)。雷珠单抗治疗组13眼(37%)和贝伐珠单抗治疗组4眼(14%)最佳矫正视力至少增加0.3logMAR。雷珠单抗治疗组平均黄斑中心凹厚度减少41.6μm,贝伐珠单抗治疗组减少8.1μm(P=0.003)。两组平均注射次数是4.46次和4.11次(P>0.05)。结论:玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗组在视力和消水肿方面疗效优于贝伐珠单抗组。但是,两种药的疗效和安全性还需要随机的长期临床试验来验证。 | Huseyin Serdarogullari Muzaffer Ozturk Umur Kayhan Selim Bolukbasi Burak Erden Mustafa Elcioglu | 2014 | 国际眼科杂志2014，14，5： | 2 |
您所在的机构暂未开通此部分的功能，请联系管理员