方法：选取2015-01/2016-01在我院治疗的糖尿病视网膜病变(DR)患者62例101眼，分别行FFA和OCT检查，对比两种检测技术效果。

结果：FFA检查DME检出率为84.2%，OCT检查DME检出率为77.2%，差异比较无统计学意义(P>0.05)； 101眼中OCT和FFA均显示黄斑水肿76眼，未显示黄斑水肿14眼，OCT和FFA诊断符合率为89.1%，Kappa值为0.653，一致性较高( P<0.05)； 不同FFA特征患者黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)，其中弥漫水肿型视网膜厚度为301.43±62.44μm，明显厚于其他患者。

结论：OCT能常规检测高血糖者黄斑区构造改变，但不能替代FFA在黄斑水肿诊断中的影响，两者联合应用利于DME的诊断。

METHODS: From January 2015 to January 2016, selected 62 patients(101 eyes)with diabetic retinopathy(DR)in our hospital, underwent FFA and OCT respectively. We compared the results of the two methods.

RESULTS: The detection rate of DME by FFA was 84.2%, and the detection rate of DME by OCT was 77.2%, the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05). In 101 eyes, OCT and FFA all showed macular edema in 76 eyes, and no macular edema in 14 eyes, the diagnostic accuracy of OCT and FFA was 89.1%, Kappa was 0.653, and the consistency was higher(P<0.05). Macular central retinal thickness difference was statistically significant in patients with different FFA features(P<0.05), the diffuse edematous retinal thickness was 301.43±62.44SymbolmA@m, which was significantly thicker than the other patients.

CONCLUSION:OCT can objectively examine the structural changes of the macular area in diabetic patients, but it cannot replace the role of FFA in the diagnosis of macular edema, the combination of the two methods is helpful in the diagnosis of DME.