| Literature DB >> 34295145 |
Ngamjit Kasetsuwan1,2, Lita Uthaithammarat1, Yonrawee Piyacomn1, Usanee Reinprayoon1,2, Chayanon Chatchavalvanich3, Ratchathorn Panchaprateep3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the effectiveness and safety of upper and lower eyelid treatment with combined application of three modes of 2940-nm erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Er:YAG) and 1064-nm neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Nd:YAG) lasers in patients with baggy eyelids (formed by intraorbital fat herniation) who exhibited meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, patients with baggy eyelid who exhibited MGD received combined laser treatment at baseline, as well as at the 4-, 8-, and 12-week follow-ups. The primary endpoint was meibum quality score at 16- and 24-week follow-ups; secondary endpoints were ocular surface index scores, tear film lipid layer thicknesses, tear break up times (TBUTs), Oxford scheme grades, and meibography grades at 16- and 24-week follow-ups. Adverse events, uncorrected visual acuities, best-corrected visual acuities, and intraocular pressures were also recorded.Entities:
Keywords: dry eye; erbium:YAG; meibomian gland dysfunction; meibum; neodymium:YAG
Year: 2021 PMID: 34295145 PMCID: PMC8291964 DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S318013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Ophthalmol ISSN: 1177-5467
Figure 1Treatment areas of steps 1, 2, 3, and 4 of laser treatment. (A) Ten passes with 10 stag pulses using transconjunctival approach in step 1. (B) Three passes with three stag pulses using cutaneous approach on periorbital skin of upper and lower eyelids in step 2. (C) Five passes or until the skin temperature exceeds 40–42°C for 2–3 minutes using cutaneous approach on bulging fat in the lower eyelid in step 3. (D) Three passes using cutaneous approach on periorbital skin of upper and lower eyelids in step 4.
Sequences and Parameters of Four-Step Laser Treatment Applied to Upper and/or Lower Eyelids
| Parameter | |
|---|---|
| Step 1: Er:YAG SmoothLiftinTM | – PS03 handpiece (Spot size 5 mm) |
| – Smooth mode (duration 250 msec) | |
| – Fluence 3.5–5 J/cm2 | |
| – Freque3ncy 2 Hz | |
| Step 2: Er:YAG SmoothLiftinTM | – PS03 handpiece (Spot size 5 mm) |
| – Smooth mode (duration 250 msec) | |
| – Fluence 3.5–5 J/cm2 | |
| – Frequency 3.3 Hz | |
| Step 3: Nd:YAG PIANO® | – R34 handpiece (Spot size 15 mm) |
| – Sweep mode | |
| – Fluence 300–500 J/cm2 | |
| – Pulse width 16 sec | |
| Step 4: Er:YAG SupErficialTM | – PS03 handpiece (Spot size 7 mm) |
| – Micro-short pulse mode (duration 100 microsec) | |
| – Fluence 2 J/cm2 | |
| – Frequency 10 Hz |
Abbreviations: Er, erbium; YAG, yttrium aluminium garnet; Nd, Neodymium.
Clinical Characteristics at Baseline and at 16-Week and 24-Week Follow-Ups
| Baseline | 16-Week Follow-Up | 24-Week Follow-Up | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean [95% CI] | Mean [95% CI] | Mean [95% CI] | |
| OSDI scores | 25.41 [16.60, 34.22] | 22.18 [13.37, 30.99] | 31.35 [22.29, 40.42] |
| TFLLT | 61.81 [48.87, 74.76] | 63.5 [50.55, 76.45] | 69.62 [56.36, 82.88] |
| TBUT(s) | 3.75 [3.04, 4.46] | 3.48 [2.77, 4.19] | 2.09 [1.37, 2.82] |
| Oxford scheme grade | 2.50 [1.51, 3.49] | 1.94 [0.95, 2.93] | 2.68 [1.67, 3.69] |
| Meibography grade | 1.50 [1.16, 1.84] | 1.38 [1.04, 1.71] | 1.26 [0.92, 1.61] |
| Meibum quality scores | 11.81 [9.57, 14.06] | 7.75 [5.50, 10.00] | 12.53 [10.21, 14.85] |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OSDI, Ocular Surface Disease Index; TFLLT, tear film lipid layer thickness; TBUT, tear break-up time; s, seconds.
Figure 2Estimated means with 95% confidence intervals of clinical outcomes at each visit. (A) Estimated mean meibum quality scores; + represents significant difference compared with meibum quality scores at baseline and at 24 weeks. (B) Estimated mean Ocular Surface Disease Index scores. (C) Estimated mean tear film lipid layer thicknesses. (D) Estimated mean tear break-up times (TBUTs) in seconds; + represents significant difference compared with TBUT at baseline and at 16 weeks. (E) Estimated mean Oxford scheme grades. (F) Estimated mean meibography grades.
Figure 3Meibomian gland morphology in a patient with meibomian gland dysfunction. (A) Meibomian gland morphology before treatment. (B) Meibomian gland morphology at 4 weeks after final treatment. Meibomian gland morphologies were similar in panels (A and B).