| Literature DB >> 33324034 |
Arjan S Hura1, Alice T Epitropoulos2, Craig N Czyz3,4, Eric D Rosenberg5.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the effect of vectored thermal pulsation treatment (VTP) on visible meibomian gland structure (VGS) in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD).Entities:
Keywords: meibomian gland dysfunction; meibomian gland pixelar analysis; meibomian gland regeneration; vectored thermal pulsation
Year: 2020 PMID: 33324034 PMCID: PMC7733054 DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S282081
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Ophthalmol ISSN: 1177-5467
Figure 1Subject 1: The first column shows the same dynamic meibomian images prior to VTP treatment with the total area analyzed (A, red outline), the area of meibomian gland atrophy + interglandular space (B, green outline), and (A) superimposed (C). The second column shows the same dynamic meibomian images after VTP treatment in the same patient as the first column. (A) indicates the total area analyzed (red outline), (B) indicates the area of meibomian gland atrophy + interglandular space (green outline), and (C) shows (A) superimposed.
Figure 2Subject 2: The first column shows the same dynamic meibomian images prior to VTP treatment with the total area analyzed (A, red outline), the area of meibomian gland atrophy + interglandular space (B, green outline), and (A) superimposed (C). The second column shows the same dynamic meibomian images after VTP treatment in the same patient as the first column. (A) indicates the total area analyzed (red outline), (B) indicates the area of meibomian gland atrophy + interglandular space (green outline), and (C) shows (A) superimposed.
Results from Morphometric Meibomian Gland Pixelar Analysis of Dynamic Meibomian Imaging for Treatment and Control Groups
| % Patients with Decline in VGS | % Patients with Improvement in VGS | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC | <5% | 5–10% | >10% | Total | NC | <5% | 5–10% | >10% | Total | |
| Vectored Thermal Pulsation (Treatment Group) (n=48 Eyes) | 0 | 22.9 | 6.3 | 2.1 | 31.3 | 0 | 41.7 | 18.8 | 8.3 | 68.8 |
| Control Group (n=22 Eyes) | 0 | 59.0 | 13.6 | 0 | 72.6 | 0 | 27.3* | 0 | 0 | 27.3 |
Notes: *Of this percentage of eyes, 83% had an improvement in VGS <1% and 17% had improvement between 1–3%.
Abbreviation: NC, no change.
Statistical Analysis of Dry Eye Disease Markers for Treatment and Control Groups
| SPEED | MMP-9 | Tear Osmolarity | Meiboscale | TBUT (p = 0.0001) | Corneal Staining (p = 0.0063) | MGE (p = 0.0038) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-VTP (Baseline Average) | 15 | 0.61 | 0.58 | 2 | 3 | 0.44 | 5 |
| Post-VTP (Average) | 10 | 0.56 | 0.47 | 2 | 7 | 0.31 | 12 |
| Control (Baseline Average) | 12 | 0.74 | 0.45 | 2 | 4 | 0.39 | 7 |
| Control Follow-Up (Average) | 9 | 0.74 | 0.45 | 2 | 3 | 0.67 | 6 |
Notes: P values indicate a statistically significant difference between Treatment and Control Groups. A value of 1 denotes a positive MMP-9 whereas a value of 0 denotes a negative MMP-9 value. A value of 1 denotes an abnormal tear osmolarity whereas a value of 0 denotes a normal tear osmolarity. A value of 1 for corneal staining denotes the presence of PEK whereas a value of 0 denotes the absence of PEK.