D. A. Dorofeev, V. Erichev, E. V. Kirilik, Ilya Vladimirovich Kokorin, P. A. Rakova, Olga B. Solovieva, A. Z. Tsyganov, A. S. Chemyakina, Valery F. Ekgardt
{"title":"评估视网膜保护治疗效果的视周标准","authors":"D. A. Dorofeev, V. Erichev, E. V. Kirilik, Ilya Vladimirovich Kokorin, P. A. Rakova, Olga B. Solovieva, A. Z. Tsyganov, A. S. Chemyakina, Valery F. Ekgardt","doi":"10.15275/rusomj.2022.0109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective — To evaluate the effect of the frequency of retinoprotective therapy courses on perimetry parameters, to compare Octopus 900 perimeter with Octopus 600 perimeter, and to assess threshold perimetry results of G-dynamic versus 24-2 programs. Material and Methods — The study involved 17 patients (34 eyes) diagnosed with primary open-angle glaucoma of advanced stage. Group 1 included subjects receiving a course of Retinalamin every 3 months. Group 2 comprised patients undergoing Retinalamin therapeutics every 6 months. Results — At the onset of the study via G-dynamic and 24-2 programs, we did not observe any statistically significant differences between the groups in mean deviation of retinal photosensitivity (MD) and pattern standard deviation of mean retinal photosensitivity (PSD). However, the absolute values differed between groups and between programs. On average, the differences in MD and PSD values obtained in the photosensitivity study with G-dynamic vs. 24-2 programs were -0.36 dB (CI 95%: -4.27; 3.54) and 0.63 dB (CI 95%: 2.37; -1.11), respectively. Hence, studies performed via 24-2 and G-dynamic programs yielded comparable results (no statistically significant differences). However, they could not be identical due to different spatial arrangement of points in different programs. Conclusion — As a result of conducted treatment, retinal photosensitivity did not exhibit statistically significant changes; however, we observed positive dynamics in both groups in MD and PSD parameters of mean retinal photosensitivity. Different devices (Octopus 600 and Octopus 900 perimeters) and different programs (24-2, G-dynamic) yielded different outcomes due to their technical features and capabilities of reproducibility; however, these differences were not statistically significant.","PeriodicalId":21426,"journal":{"name":"Russian Open Medical Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perimetry Criteria For Assessing The Effectiveness Of Retinoprotective Therapy\",\"authors\":\"D. A. Dorofeev, V. Erichev, E. V. Kirilik, Ilya Vladimirovich Kokorin, P. A. Rakova, Olga B. Solovieva, A. Z. Tsyganov, A. S. Chemyakina, Valery F. Ekgardt\",\"doi\":\"10.15275/rusomj.2022.0109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective — To evaluate the effect of the frequency of retinoprotective therapy courses on perimetry parameters, to compare Octopus 900 perimeter with Octopus 600 perimeter, and to assess threshold perimetry results of G-dynamic versus 24-2 programs. Material and Methods — The study involved 17 patients (34 eyes) diagnosed with primary open-angle glaucoma of advanced stage. Group 1 included subjects receiving a course of Retinalamin every 3 months. Group 2 comprised patients undergoing Retinalamin therapeutics every 6 months. Results — At the onset of the study via G-dynamic and 24-2 programs, we did not observe any statistically significant differences between the groups in mean deviation of retinal photosensitivity (MD) and pattern standard deviation of mean retinal photosensitivity (PSD). However, the absolute values differed between groups and between programs. On average, the differences in MD and PSD values obtained in the photosensitivity study with G-dynamic vs. 24-2 programs were -0.36 dB (CI 95%: -4.27; 3.54) and 0.63 dB (CI 95%: 2.37; -1.11), respectively. Hence, studies performed via 24-2 and G-dynamic programs yielded comparable results (no statistically significant differences). However, they could not be identical due to different spatial arrangement of points in different programs. Conclusion — As a result of conducted treatment, retinal photosensitivity did not exhibit statistically significant changes; however, we observed positive dynamics in both groups in MD and PSD parameters of mean retinal photosensitivity. Different devices (Octopus 600 and Octopus 900 perimeters) and different programs (24-2, G-dynamic) yielded different outcomes due to their technical features and capabilities of reproducibility; however, these differences were not statistically significant.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21426,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Russian Open Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Russian Open Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15275/rusomj.2022.0109\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Russian Open Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15275/rusomj.2022.0109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Perimetry Criteria For Assessing The Effectiveness Of Retinoprotective Therapy
Objective — To evaluate the effect of the frequency of retinoprotective therapy courses on perimetry parameters, to compare Octopus 900 perimeter with Octopus 600 perimeter, and to assess threshold perimetry results of G-dynamic versus 24-2 programs. Material and Methods — The study involved 17 patients (34 eyes) diagnosed with primary open-angle glaucoma of advanced stage. Group 1 included subjects receiving a course of Retinalamin every 3 months. Group 2 comprised patients undergoing Retinalamin therapeutics every 6 months. Results — At the onset of the study via G-dynamic and 24-2 programs, we did not observe any statistically significant differences between the groups in mean deviation of retinal photosensitivity (MD) and pattern standard deviation of mean retinal photosensitivity (PSD). However, the absolute values differed between groups and between programs. On average, the differences in MD and PSD values obtained in the photosensitivity study with G-dynamic vs. 24-2 programs were -0.36 dB (CI 95%: -4.27; 3.54) and 0.63 dB (CI 95%: 2.37; -1.11), respectively. Hence, studies performed via 24-2 and G-dynamic programs yielded comparable results (no statistically significant differences). However, they could not be identical due to different spatial arrangement of points in different programs. Conclusion — As a result of conducted treatment, retinal photosensitivity did not exhibit statistically significant changes; however, we observed positive dynamics in both groups in MD and PSD parameters of mean retinal photosensitivity. Different devices (Octopus 600 and Octopus 900 perimeters) and different programs (24-2, G-dynamic) yielded different outcomes due to their technical features and capabilities of reproducibility; however, these differences were not statistically significant.
期刊介绍:
Russian Open Medical Journal (RusOMJ) (ISSN 2304-3415) is an international peer reviewed open access e-journal. The website is updated quarterly with the RusOMJ’s latest original research, clinical studies, case reports, reviews, news, and comment articles. This Journal devoted to all field of medicine. All the RusOMJ’s articles are published in full on www.romj.org with open access and no limits on word counts. Our mission is to lead the debate on health and to engage, inform, and stimulate doctors, researchers, and other health professionals in ways that will improve outcomes for patients. The RusOMJ team is based mainly in Saratov (Russia), although we also have editors elsewhere in Russian and in other countries.