视神经属于中枢神经的一部分，损伤后难以再生。视神经损伤通常伴随视网膜神经节细胞(retinal ganglion cells，RGCs)的持续性凋亡及视神经变性坏死，引起视力损害甚至完全失明。目前针对视神经再生的基础研究主要集中于保护和维持视神经损伤后RGCs的存活、促进RGCs轴突再生及重建视神经功能。本文以RGCs保护、轴突再生及视神经功能重建等为关键词，查询国内外最新视神经再生研究类文献，并分析整理，从抗氧化应激、提供外源性细胞因子、炎症刺激、抗胶质瘢痕、基因调控等方面阐述近年的视神经再生研究进展，以期对后续的基础研究开展及临床转化有所帮助。

Optic nerves are a part of the central nervous system, which is difficult to regenerate after injury. Optic nerve injury is usually accompanied by continuous apoptosis of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) and degeneration or necrosis of optic nerves, resulting in visual impairment or even complete blindness. At present, the basic research on optic nerve regeneration mainly focuses on protecting and maintaining the survival of RGCs after optic nerve injury, promoting RGCs axon regeneration, and reconstructing optic nerve function. In this paper, RGCs protection,axon regeneration, and optic nerve function reconstruction are used as key words to collect the latest domestic and foreign literatures on optic nerve regeneration. The research progress of optic nerve regeneration in recent years was reviewed from the aspects of antioxidant stress, provision of exogenous cytokines, inflammatory stimulation, anti-glial scar, gene regulation and so on, in order to help the follow-up basic research and clinical translation.

作为一种新型无创且操作简单的主观检查手段，临界闪烁融合频率(critical flicker fusionfrequency,CFF)可动态反映人眼视功能变化情况。作为早期识别脱髓鞘病变和评估视功能恢复情况的敏感指标，上个世纪已被国外学者用于视网膜和视神经疾病研究中，包括氯喹中毒性视网膜病变、糖尿病视网膜病变、中心性浆液性视网膜病变、年龄相关的黄斑病变、乙胺丁醇中毒性视神经病变、视神经炎和非动脉炎性前部缺血性视神经病变。在视网膜和视神经疾病中，CFF均有不同程度下降，依据CFF改善程度以及主要损害的色光可能有助于视网膜和视神经疾病的鉴别，且CFF与其他视功能，视力、视野、视觉诱发电位的潜时具有较好的相关性。目前国内相关研究尚处于起步阶段，本文就CFF在视网膜和视神经疾病的应用情况做一总结。

As a new non-invasive and simple subjective examination method, critical flicker fusion frequency (CFF) can dynamically reflect the changes of visual function of human eyes. As a sensitive indicator for early identification of demyelinating diseases and assessment of visual function recovery, it has been used by foreign scholars in the last century in the field of retinal and optic nerve diseases, including chloroquine toxic retinopathy, diabetic retinopathy, central serous retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration, ethambutol-induced optic neuropathy, optic neuritis and non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Though there was a different decrease of CFF in retina and optic nerve diseases, it may be helpful for the differentiation of retinal and optic nerve diseases according to the degree of CFF improvement and the main damaged color light. Moreover, CFF has a good correlation with other visual functions, visual acuity, visual field, and peak time of visual evoked potential. At present, and relevant domestic studies is still in its infancy. This article summarizes the application of CFF in retinal and optic nerve diseases.

目的：探讨正常眼压性青光眼(normal tension glaucoma，NTG)患者睡眠体位与其双眼不对称损害的关系。方法：纳入2014年1月至2018年9月在温州青光眼进展研究(Wenzhou Glaucoma Progression Study，WGPS)项目中的NTG患者。眼部主要检查有视野和光学相干断层扫描(optical coherence tomography，OCT)。睡眠体位数据通过基线睡眠体位问卷获得。根据侧卧位睡眠偏好，将NTG患者眼部参数分为卧位高侧眼和卧位低侧眼进行讨论；根据双眼不对称损害，将患者眼部参数分为较好眼和较差眼讨论。双眼不对称损害定义为双眼视野平均偏差(mean deviation，MD)差值>6 dB或杯盘比差值>0.2。结果：共纳入158例NTG患者，最长随访时间为48个月，其中122例(77.22%)患者存在睡眠偏好；存在睡眠偏好的患者中，83例(68.03%)患者存在侧卧位偏好；存在侧卧位偏好的患者中，大多数患者偏好右侧卧位[右vs左：59 (71.1%) vs 24 (28.9%)，P<0.001]。对存在侧卧位偏好的患者进行分析，发现卧位高侧眼与卧位低侧眼眼部参数之间，差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)；卧位低侧眼的视野进展速率[视野指数(visual field index，VFI)、MD]慢于卧位高侧眼(0.48%±1.66%/年 vs ?0.45%±3.07%/年；0.54±0.96 dB/年 vs 0.2±1.15 dB/年)，差异无统计学意义(P=0.086，P=0.308)。对同时存在侧卧位偏好及双眼不对称损害的患者进行分析，发现卧位高侧眼与卧位低侧眼的眼部参数之间，差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)；卧位低侧较好眼的个数及占比高于卧位低侧较坏眼[23 (57.5%) vs 17(42.5%)]，但差异无统计学意义(P=0.132)；卧位低侧眼的视野进展速率(VFI、MD)也慢于卧位高侧眼(1.19%±1.65%/年 vs ?0.86%±3.65%/年；0.71±1.13 dB/年 vs0.13 dB/年)，但差异无统计学意义(P=0.064，P=0.419)。结论：存在睡眠体位偏好的NTG患者中，约68%存在侧卧位偏好；存在侧卧位偏好的患者中，约70%偏好右侧卧位。但本研究并未发现睡眠体位与青光眼患者双眼不对称损害及其疾病进展存在相关性。

Objective: To investigate the association between lateral decubitus position (LDP) and asymmetric loss in normal tension glaucoma (NTG) patients. Methods: NTG patients were enrolled from Wenzhou Glaucoma Progression Study (WGPS) in Jan. 2014 to Sep. 2018. The main eye examinations included visual field test and optical coherence tomography (OCT). A questionnaire to determine the preferred sleeping position was administered to each patient in the baseline. According to the LDP, the eye parameters were divided into non-dependent eyes(higher lateral eyes) and dependent eyes (lower lateral position eyes) for discussion. According to the asymmetric damage, the ocular parameters of the patients were divided into the better eyes and the worse eyes for analysis.Asymmetric loss was defined as a difference in mean deviation (MD) between the 2 eyes of at least 6 dB or disc/cup >0.2. Results: One hundred and twenty-two patients (77.22%) had sleep preferences among the 158 NTG patients who was finally recruited and the longest follow up time was 48 months. Among the patients with sleep preference, 83 patients (68.03%) preferred the lateral decubitus position. Patients who had the lateral decubitus position mostly preferred the right lateral position [59 (71.1%) vs 24 (28.9%), P<0.001]. For patients who had the lateral decubitus position, the ocular parameters between the dependent eyes and the non-dependent eyes had no statistical difference(P>0.05); the rate of visual field progression in the dependent eyes was slower than that in non-dependent eyes, but there was no statistical difference between the two groups (0.48%±1.66%/year vs ?0.45%±3.07%/year; 0.54±0.96 dB/year vs 0.2±1.15 dB/year; P=0.086, P=0.308, respectively). For patients who had the lateral decubitus position and asymmetric damage, the ocular parameters between the dependent eyes and the non-dependent eyes had also no statistical difference (P>0.05); the number and ratio of the dependent-better eye and the dependent-worse eye were 48 and 41, respectively [23 (57.5%) vs 17 (42.5%), P=0.132]; the rate of visual field progression in the dependent eyes was also lower than that in non-dependent eyes, but there was no statistical difference between the two groups (1.19%±1.65%/year vs ?0.86%±3.65%/year; 0.71±1.13 dB/year vs 0.13 dB/year; P=0.064, P=0.419 respectively). Conclusion: About 68% of NTG patients with sleep preferences preferred the lateral decubitus position; and about 70% of patients with the lateral decubitus position preferred the right side sleeping. However, this study did not find a correlation between lateral decubitus position and asymmetric visual field loss.