Literature DB >> 20189653

The efficacy, sensitivity, and specificity of in vivo laser confocal microscopy in the diagnosis of meibomian gland dysfunction.

Osama M A Ibrahim1, Yukihiro Matsumoto, Murat Dogru, Enrique Sato Adan, Tais Hitomi Wakamatsu, Tateki Goto, Kazuno Negishi, Kazuo Tsubota.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy, sensitivity and specificity of confocal microscopy (CM) parameters: meibomian gland (MG) acinar longest diameter (MGALD), MG acinar shortest diameter (MGASD), inflammatory cell density (ICD), and MG acinar unit density (MGAUD) in the diagnosis of MG dysfunction (MGD).
DESIGN: Prospective, controlled, single-center study. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty MGD patients (9 males, 11 females; mean age, 63.5+/-16.5 years) and 26 age- and gender-matched control subjects (13 males, 13 females; mean age, 53.2+/-15.7 years) were recruited.
METHODS: All subjects underwent slit-lamp examinations, tear film break-up time (BUT) measurements, assessment of tear evaporation rate from the ocular surface (TEROS), vital stainings, Schirmer test, meibography, MG expressibility, and CM of the MG. Data were compared between the 2 groups using the Mann-Whitney and chi-square tests. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The correlation between the clinical findings of tear functions, vital staining scores, and the 4 CM parameters were tested by Spearman's correlation coefficient by rank test. Receiver operating characteristic curve technique was used to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and cutoff values of CM parameters.
RESULTS: The mean tear film BUT, vital staining scores, TEROS values, MG expressibility, and MG dropout grades by meibography were significantly worse in MGD patients compared with controls (P<0.001). The mean values of the MGALD, MGASD, ICD, and MGAUD in MGD patients were significantly worse than those observed in the controls with CM. All CM parameters showed a strong, significant correlation with tear functions, ocular surface vital stainings, MG expressibility, and MG dropout grades. The cutoff values for MGALD, MGASD, ICD, and MGAUD in the diagnosis of MGD were 65 microm, 25 microm, 300 cells/mm2, and 70 glands/mm2, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity values of these parameters under these cutoff values were 90% and 81% for MGALD, 86% and 96% for MGASD, 100% and 100% for ICD, 81% and 81% for MGAUD.
CONCLUSIONS: Confocal microscopy has the potential to diagnose the simple MGD with high sensitivity and specificity. The CM-based diagnostic parameters correlated significantly and strongly with the status of the ocular surface disease. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any of the materials discussed in this article. Copyright 2010 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20189653     DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.12.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  28 in total

1.  Meibography: A review of techniques and technologies.

Authors:  Ryan J Wise; Rachel K Sobel; Richard C Allen
Journal:  Saudi J Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-10

Review 2.  The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: report of the diagnosis subcommittee.

Authors:  Alan Tomlinson; Anthony J Bron; Donald R Korb; Shiro Amano; Jerry R Paugh; E Ian Pearce; Richard Yee; Norihiko Yokoi; Reiko Arita; Murat Dogru
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2011-03-30       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Eyelid cleansing with ointment for obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction.

Authors:  Minako Kaido; Osama M A Ibrahim; Motoko Kawashima; Reiko Ishida; Enrique A Sato; Kazuo Tsubota
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 2.447

Review 4.  In vivo confocal microscopy in dry eye disease and related conditions.

Authors:  Albert Alhatem; Bernardo Cavalcanti; Pedram Hamrah
Journal:  Semin Ophthalmol       Date:  2012 Sep-Nov       Impact factor: 1.975

5.  Changes of meibomian glands in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Tao Yu; Wei-Yun Shi; Ai-Ping Song; Yang Gao; Guang-Fu Dang; Gang Ding
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-12-18       Impact factor: 1.779

6.  Meibography and meibomian gland measurements in ocular graft-versus-host disease.

Authors:  L A Engel; S Wittig; F Bock; L Sauerbier; C Scheid; U Holtick; J-M Chemnitz; M Hallek; C Cursiefen; P Steven
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2015-04-20       Impact factor: 5.483

7.  Dry eye disease: A review of diagnostic approaches and treatments.

Authors:  Hui Lin; Samuel C Yiu
Journal:  Saudi J Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-06-24

8.  In vivo detection of clinically non-apparent ocular surface inflammation in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction-associated refractory dry eye symptoms: a pilot study.

Authors:  Y Qazi; A Kheirkhah; C Blackie; A Cruzat; M Trinidad; C Williams; D R Korb; P Hamrah
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 9.  In vivo confocal microscopy of the ocular surface: from bench to bedside.

Authors:  Edoardo Villani; Christophe Baudouin; Nathan Efron; Pedram Hamrah; Takashi Kojima; Sanjay V Patel; Stephen C Pflugfelder; Andrey Zhivov; Murat Dogru
Journal:  Curr Eye Res       Date:  2013-11-11       Impact factor: 2.424

Review 10.  Image-guided evaluation and monitoring of treatment response in patients with dry eye disease.

Authors:  Yureeda Qazi; Shruti Aggarwal; Pedram Hamrah
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 3.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.