| Literature DB >> 35720025 |
Lanying Liu1, Shengfu Yang1, Min Zhu1, Min Wang1, Xin Wei1.
Abstract
The objective of the study was to explore microscopic images under a watershed segmentation algorithm combined with meibomian gland microprobe in the treatment of demodectic blepharitis. For segmenting the connected target objects in the image, the watershed algorithm was utilized first to obtain the target region in the image, and then, the fuzzy C-means (FCM) clustering algorithm was used to cluster the targets. The different grayscale regions in the microscopic images were segmented. 90 patients with demodectic blepharitis-related dry eyes were selected, and they were divided into experimental group 1 (group E1, n = 30), experimental group 2 (group E2, n = 30), and control group (group CG, n = 30). The breakup time (BUT) of the tear film, the subjective score of clinical symptoms, and the number of mites were compared among the three groups before and after treatment. The results showed that after treatment, the indicators of group E1 and group E2 were significantly lower than those before treatment, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The treatment effect of group E1 was significantly better than that of the other two groups (P < 0.05). The subjective clinical symptom scores of groups E1, E2, and CG were 13.43 ± 1.41, 13.51 ± 1.41, and 13.64 ± 0.84, respectively, before treatment, and those after treatment were 3.1 ± 1.841, 5.4 ± 0.661, and 13.4 ± 0.841, respectively. The clinical sign scores of the groups E1 and E2 after treatment were remarkably different from those before treatment (P < 0.05). Compared with the scores of clinical signs and clinical symptoms after treatment, those of group E1 showed the largest differences, indicating the best treatment effect. In conclusion, the treatment effect of blepharitis could be promoted with the improved watershed algorithm, and the microscopic images combined with meibomian gland microprobe gave the better effect in the treatment of demodectic blepharitis than the conventional drug heat compress.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35720025 PMCID: PMC9200586 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4389659
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the watershed algorithm.
Figure 2Image segmentation flowchart of the watershed algorithm.
Figure 3The specific flowchart of the IWS algorithm.
The scoring scale of various symptoms.
| Scoring items | Symptoms | Score | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subjective symptoms | Asymptomatic | 0 | |
| Occasionally, not affecting daily life | 1 | ||
| Mostly, moderate discomfort | 2 | ||
| Persistence of symptoms seriously affecting life | 3 | ||
| Sign score | Blockage of meibomian gland opening by phosphorous debris at the root of eyelashes | None | 0 |
| <1/3 eyelid margin | 1 | ||
| Meibomian gland secretion | Clear | 0 | |
| Dirty | 1 | ||
| Granular or chyle | 2 | ||
| Toothpaste-shaped | 3 | ||
| Conjunctival hyperemia | None | 0 | |
| Mild | 1 | ||
| Moderate | 2 | ||
| Severe | 3 | ||
Figure 4Analysis results of different algorithms.
General information of patients.
| Groups | Number | Man | Women | Average age |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | 30 | 11 | 19 | 51.06 ± 2.13 |
| E2 | 30 | 13 | 17 | 49.60 ± 4.34 |
| CG | 30 | 20 | 10 | |
| Total | 90 | 44 | 46 | 53.56 ± 2.34 |
Figure 5Images of demodex mites.
Figure 6Microscopic images of demodex mites.
Figure 7Comparison of NIKBUTav of patients among the three groups before and after treatment. ∗Compared with that before treatment (P < 0.05).
Comparison of scores of subjective clinical symptoms of patients among the three groups.
| Groups | Before treatment | After treatment |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | 13.43 ± 1.41 | 3.1 ± 1.841∗# | 21.75 | <0.001 |
| E2 | 13.51 ± 1.41 | 5.4 ± 0.661∗ | 19.272 | <0.001 |
| CG | 13.64 ± 0.84 | 13.4 ± 0.841 | 1.432 | 0.142 |
|
| 0.026 | 587.32 | ||
|
| 0.875 | <0.001 |
∗Compared with those before treatment (P < 0.05); #compared with those in group E2 (P < 0.05).
Comparison of clinical sign scores of patients among the three groups.
| Groups | Before treatment | After treatment |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | 7.23 ± 1.371 | 3.1 ± 1.841∗# | 11.74 | <0.001 |
| E2 | 7.31 ± 1.414 | 5.4 ± 1.161∗ | 8.279 | <0.001 |
| CG | 7.61 ± 0.93 | 6.75 ± 0.641 | 1.331 | 0.247 |
|
| 0.042 | 187.71 | ||
|
| 0.893 | <0.001 |
∗Compared with those before treatment (P < 0.05); #compared with CG (P < 0.05).
Figure 8Comparison of the number of demodex mites in the three groups before and after treatment. ∗Compared with those before treatment (P < 0.05); #compared with CG (P < 0.05).