| Literature DB >> 31885889 |
Ning Li1, Tao Wang1, Ruixue Wang1, Xuanchu Duan2,3,4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of excision on dry eye and meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) in individuals with pterygium, before and after surgery. It also aimed to investigate how these effects correlate with the size and thickness of the pterygium. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 63 eyes from 63 patients with primary nasal pterygium and 45 eyes from 45 healthy volunteers without ocular pathologies were enrolled in this study. 63 eyes from 63 patients underwent pterygium surgery. ImageJ software was used to calculate the pterygium size based on images of the anterior segments. Anterior segment spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) was performed preoperatively to measure the thickness of the pterygium 1 mm anterior to the nasal scleral spur. The ocular surface disease index (OSDI), Schirmer I Test (SIT), and MGD grade were used to evaluate the eyes, and the eyes were imaged using the noninvasive keratograph average tear film breakup time (NIBUTav), tear meniscus height (TMH), meiboscore, and lipid layer grading tools of the Oculus® Keratograph 5M, preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31885889 PMCID: PMC6914971 DOI: 10.1155/2019/5935239
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ophthalmol ISSN: 2090-004X Impact factor: 1.909
Features of ocular surface disorders and MGs in the pterygium patients.
| Controls ( | Pterygium group ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 50.11 ± 7.78 | 52.43 ± 6.27 | 0.090 |
| Sex ratio (F/M) | 26/19 | 39/24 | 0.666 |
| OSDI | 12.00 ± 2.87 | 20.11 ± 4.27 | <0.001 |
| SIT (mm) | 12.11 ± 3.27 | 11.70 ± 4.36 | 0.575 |
| NIBUTav (s) | 10.81 ± 2.77 | 7.78 ± 3.50 | <0.001 |
| TMH (mm) | 0.24 ± 0.06 | 0.24 ± 0.06 | 0.688 |
| Meiboscore | 1.02 ± 0.69 | 2.91 ± 1.51 | <0.001 |
| Eyelid margin abnormality | 1.04 ± 0.74 | 1.48 ± 0.84 | 0.007 |
| Lipid layer grading | 2.11 ± 0.75 | 1.32 ± 0.76 | <0.001 |
p, significance level in the Pearson's correlation analysis. Data are expressed as means ± standard deviation (SD).
Figure 1ImageJ software used to calculate the size of the pterygium (a) Edge of the pterygium head; (b) Edge of the upper boundary of the pterygium; (c) Edge of the nasal border of the pterygium, coinciding with the border of the limbus; (d) Edge of the lower boundary of the pterygium.
Figure 2(a) Anterior segment SD-OCT horizontal OCT scan (parallel to the axis of the midpoint of the cornea on the nasal and particular sides) of a primary pterygium. (b) Anterior segment SD-OCT measures the thickness of pterygium at 1 mm in the limbus. The primary pterygium is the overgrown section attached to the cornea. The value of 251 μm represents the thickness of the pterygium at 1 mm in the limbus. The pterygium is present between the two arrows.
Correlations between the pterygium parameters, dry eye indices, and meibomian gland functionality.
| Size | Thickness | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| OSDI | 0.216 | 0.089 | −0.022 | 0.862 |
| SIT (mm) | 0.073 | 0.570 | 0.045 | 0.727 |
| NIBUTav (s) | −0.647 | <0.001 | −0.263 | 0.037 |
| TMH (mm) | −0.109 | 0.395 | 0.122 | 0.342 |
| Meiboscore | 0.839 | <0.001 | 0.303 | 0.016 |
| Eyelid margin abnormality | 0.197 | 0.123 | 0.007 | 0.960 |
| Lipid layer grading | −0.824 | <0.001 | −0.314 | 0.012 |
R, Pearson's correlation analysis correlation value. p, Pearson's correlation analysis significance value.
Figure 3Correlations between pterygium size and thickness and various clinical indicators pre-excision in the pterygium patients: (a) Pterygium size; (b) Pterygium thickness (R, Pearson's correlation coefficient, −1 ≤ R ≤ 1). A p value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Ocular surface disorders and MGs in the pterygium patients after excision surgery.
| 1 month after surgery | 3 months after surgery | 6 months after surgery |
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 and 1 | 3 and 1 | 3 and 2 | |||||
| OSDI | 17.25 ± 4.48 | 14.51 ± 4.01 | 14.40 ± 4.15 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.818 |
| SIT (mm) | 11.92 ± 4.31#† | 12.68 ± 3.68#† | 12.91 ± 3.31#† | 0.241 | 0.273 | 0.158 | 0.749 |
| NIBUTav (s) | 9.04 ± 4.06 | 11.12 ± 4.12 | 11.14 ± 4.27 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.972 |
| TMH (mm) | 0.23 ± 0.10#† | 0.23 ± 0.09#† | 0.23 ± 0.09#† | 0.882 | 0.846 | 0.967 | 0.815 |
| Meiboscore | 2.86 ± 1.19# | 2.94 ± 1.05# | 2.79 ± 1.25# | 0.582 | 0.466 | 0.560 | 0.191 |
| Eyelid margin abnormality | 1.10 ± 0.61 | 1.10 ± 0.59 | 1.10 ± 0.59 | <0.001 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Lipid layer grading | 1.67 ± 0.99 | 2.00 ± 0.65 | 2.05 ± 0.71 | <0.001 | 0.005 | 0.001 | 0.684 |
p, significance level in Pearson's correlation analysis. Data are expressed as means ± SD. Preoperative vs. postoperative comparison; p > 0.05. Preoperative vs. postoperative comparison; p < 0.05. †Preoperative vs. control group comparison; p > 0.05.
Figure 4Correlations between pterygium size and thickness and various clinical indicators 1 month after surgery in patients with pterygium: (a) Pterygium size; (b) Pterygium thickness (R, Pearson's correlation coefficient, −1 ≤ R ≤ 1). A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Correlations between the pterygium parameters, dry eye indices, and MG functionality postoperatively.
| 1 month after surgery | 3 months after surgery | 6 months after surgery | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size | Thickness | Size | Thickness | Size | Thickness | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| OSDI | 0.976 | <0.001 | 0.277 | 0.028 | 0.985 | <0.001 | 0.284 | 0.024 | 0.978 | <0.001 | 0.286 | 0.023 |
| SIT (mm) | −0.950 | <0.001 | −0.354 | 0.004 | −0.100 | 0.436 | −0.167 | 0.190 | 0.004 | 0.974 | −0.230 | 0.070 |
| NIBUTav (s) | −0.342 | 0.007 | −0.598 | <0.001 | −0.430 | 0.001 | −0.568 | <0.001 | −0.342 | 0.007 | −0.598 | <0.001 |
| TMH (mm) | −0.934 | <0.001 | −0.288 | 0.022 | 0.131 | 0.308 | 0.056 | 0.665 | 0.009 | 0.945 | 0.135 | 0.293 |
| Meiboscore | 0.854 | <0.001 | 0.332 | 0.008 | 0.702 | <0.001 | 0.284 | 0.024 | 0.882 | <0.001 | 0.299 | 0.017 |
| Eyelid margin abnormality | 0.183 | 0.151 | −0.023 | 0.856 | 0.208 | 0.101 | 0.008 | 0.953 | 0.223 | 0.079 | −0.054 | 0.627 |
| Lipid layer grading | −0.845 | <0.001 | −0.253 | 0.045 | −0.105 | 0.412 | −0.046 | 0.721 | −0.150 | 0.240 | −0.100 | 0.437 |
R, Pearson's correlation analysis coefficient value; p, Pearson's correlation analysis significance value.