目的：对儿童癔症性视力障碍的病因进行分析，比较试镜与人工泪液给药治疗的疗效。方法：纳入2013年10月至2020年10月以“癔症性突发视力下降”于深圳市儿童医院门诊就诊的36例患儿，其中男16例，女20例。按随机原则分为试镜组与人工泪液给药组。两组在治疗过程中都辅以语言暗示。两组治疗的首次有效率采用SPSS17.0软件Fisher精确概率检验。分析儿童癔症性视力障碍的发病原因，提出诊断要点和防治对策。结果：在辅以语言暗示的前提下，试镜组人工泪液给药组治疗方案的首次有效率分别为94.4%、83.3%，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。在相关病因分析中，学习压力相关的有20例，占55.6%，包括成绩下降、逃避考试、因成绩受到家长或老师的训斥，甚至体罚。家庭变故13例，占36.1%，父母离异为主要原因。留守儿童不愿返乡、同学纠纷、校园霸凌以及外伤等为其他原因。结论：试镜加语言暗示比人工泪液加语言暗示更能有效提高癔症性视力障碍的首次治疗有效率。学习压力、家庭变故相关因素为癔症性视力障碍的最常见原因

Objective: To analyze the causes of hysterical visual impairment in children, and to compare the efficacy of two treatments of trial frame and artificial tears administration. Methods: A total of 36 children with sudden hysterical visual impairment admitted to Shenzhen Children’s Hospital from October 2013 to October 2020 were enrolled in our study, including 16 males and 20 females. They were randomly divided into trial frame group and artificial tears group. Both groups were supplemented with verbal suggestion during the treatment. The primary effective rates of the two groups were compared by SPSS 17.0 Fisher’s exact test. The causes of hysterical visual impairment in children were analyzed, and the main points of specific diagnostic tests and treatments were summarized. Results: The primary effective rate of the trial frame group and the artificial tears group were 94.4% and 83.3% respectively.Thedifference was statistically significant (P<0.05). In this study, therewere 20 cases (55.6%) related to study pressure, including decline in academic performance, evasion of exams, reprimand by parents or teachers, and even corporal punishment. There were 13 cases (36.1%) caused by family accidents, and parents’ divorce was the main reason. Leftover children unwilling to return hometown, classmate disputes, campus bullying and trauma were other reasons. Conclusion: Trialframe is more effective than artificial tears therapy in improving primary effective rate of hysterical visual impairment. Study pressure, family accident are the most common causes of hysterical visual impairment

目的：对比两种不同部位M22优化脉冲激光治疗方法治疗睑板腺功能障碍(meibomian gland dysfunction，MGD)所致干眼的疗效。方法：回顾性分析汕头博德眼科医院干眼门诊患者105例，包括常规治疗组和改良治疗组两个组别，常规治疗组激光部位为下睑，改良治疗组激光部位为联合上下睑，所有患者行M22优化脉冲光治疗一个疗程(每月1次，共3次)，治疗前后均采用keratograph 5M干眼分析仪分析评估患者的泪河高度情况、泪膜破裂时间(break-up time，BUT)、角膜荧光染色(corneal fluorescence staining，CFS)和睑板腺排出能力等参数。采用t检验分析对比治疗前后变化情况。结果：患者治疗后泪河高度较强脉冲光治疗前明显增高，BUT时间延长，角膜荧光染色和睑板腺排出能力评分均有好转，每组治疗后与治疗前差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)，两组间治疗前后各参数差异比较均没有统计学意义。结论：两种不同部位M22优化脉冲激光治疗方法在治疗MGD导致的干眼方面有较好的效果，是较安全有效地治疗方法，两种不同方法治疗效果无明显差异。

Objective: To study the efficacy of two methods of M22 optimal pulsed technology in the treatment of dry eye caused by meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Methods: A total of 105 patients collected from Shantou Balder Eye Hospital were divided into two groups. The treatment position of the conventional group was lower eyelid, the other group was combined with upper and lower eyelid. All patients accepted M22 Optimal Pulsed Technology treatment for three times, once a month. Keratograph 5M dry eye analyzer was used to assess the height of tears river, break-up time (BUT), corneal fluorescence Staining(CFS)and meibomian gland expressibility. The results before and after laser treatment were compared using t-test in this study. Results: After treatment, the height of tear river, BUT, CFS and meibomian gland expressibility were improved. There was a statistically significant difference between each group after and before treatment (P<0.01). There was no significant difference before and after treatment between the two groups. Conclusion: The two methods of M22 Optimal Pulsed Technology are effective in treating dry eyes caused by MGD. There is no significant difference in the therapeutic effect between two methods.