首页> 外文期刊>BMC Ophthalmology >Clinical results of Intraductal Meibomian gland probing combined with intense pulsed light in treating patients with refractory obstructive Meibomian gland dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial
【24h】

Clinical results of Intraductal Meibomian gland probing combined with intense pulsed light in treating patients with refractory obstructive Meibomian gland dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial

机译:导管内睑缘腺探测结合强脉冲光治疗难治性梗阻性睑缘腺功能障碍的临床结果:一项随机对照试验

获取原文
           

摘要

This study aims to optimize the therapeutic regimen for refractory obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction (o-MGD) patients by combining intraductal meibomian gland probing (MGP) and intense pulsed light (IPL) to enhance their positive effects and reduce their limitations. This randomized, assessor blind study includes 45 patients (90 eyes) with refractory o-MGD who were divided into 3 groups via allocation concealment: IPL (group I, received an IPL treatment course: 3 times at 3-week intervals), MGP (group II, received MGP one time), and combined MGP-IPL (group III, MGP first followed by an IPL treatment course). Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness score (SPEED), tear break-up time (TBUT), corneal fluorescein staining (CFS), meibum grade, and lid margin finding results were assessed at baseline, 3?weeks after final treatment for groups I and III, 3 and 12?weeks after MGP for group II. Six months after final treatment, the SPEED and willingness to receive any treatment again were also collected for all groups. Paired Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney U with Bonferroni correction, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for data analysis. For all 3 groups, all previously mentioned indexes improved significantly following treatment (P0.01). MGP-IPL was better than IPL and MGP in terms of post-treatment SPEED, TBUT, meibum grade, and lid telangiectasia (P0.05/3). Furthermore, the MGP-IPL was better than IPL in terms of lid tenderness and better than MGP in terms of orifice abnormality (P 0.05/3). Six months later, the SPEED for the MGP-IPL was also significantly lower than other groups (P0.05/3). Moreover, no patients in the MGP-IPL group expressed the need to be treated again compared to 35.7% or 20% of patients in the IPL or MGP groups, respectively. Compared with IPL or MGP alone, the combination MGP-IPL produced best results in relieving all signs and symptoms and helping patients attain long-lasting symptom relief. http://clinicaltrials.gov , ChiCTR1900021273 (retrospectively registered February 9, 2019).
机译:这项研究旨在通过结合导管内睑板腺探测(MGP)和强脉冲光(IPL)来优化难治性阻塞性睑板腺功能障碍(o-MGD)患者的治疗方案,以增强其积极作用并减少其局限性。这项随机,评估评估的盲人研究包括45例难治性o-MGD患者(90眼),通过分配隐蔽将其分为3组:IPL(I组,接受IPL治疗过程:每3周间隔3次),MGP(第二组,一次接受MGP治疗),并联合使用MGP-IPL(第三组,首先接受MGP治疗,然后进行IPL治疗)。对第一组和第二组的最终治疗后,在基线时评估标准的患者眼干评分(SPEED),泪液破裂时间(TBUT),角膜荧光素染色(CFS),睑板等级和睑缘发现结果的评估结果组II在MGP之后的第III,3和12周。最终治疗六个月后,还收集了所有组的SPEED和再次接受任何治疗的意愿。将配对的Wilcoxon,具有Bonferroni校正的Mann-Whitney U和Kruskal-Wallis检验用于数据分析。对于所有3组,治疗后所有上述指标均显着改善(P <0.01)。在治疗后的SPEED,TBUT,睑板等级和眼睑毛细血管扩张方面,MGP-IPL优于IPL和MGP(P <0.05 / 3)。此外,MGP-IPL在眼睑压痛方面优于IPL,在孔口异常方面优于MGP(P <0.05 / 3)。六个月后,MGP-IPL的SPEED也显着低于其他组(P <0.05 / 3)。此外,与IPL或MGP组中分别有35.7%或20%的患者相比,MGP-IPL组中没有患者表示需要再次接受治疗。与单独使用IPL或MGP相比,MGP-IPL的组合在减轻所有体征和症状以及帮助患者获得持久的症状缓解方面产生了最佳效果。 http://clinicaltrials.gov,ChiCTR1900021273(追溯注册于2019年2月9日)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号