| Literature DB >> 36101796 |
Jingyao Chen1, Yixin Zheng1, Weijia Zhang1, Zijun Zhao1, Yanze Xu1.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of amniotic membrane transplantation combined with the closure of the tenon capsule and bulbar conjunctival space.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36101796 PMCID: PMC9462984 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5844973
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Figure 1A flowchart of patient selection and research methods.
Baseline characteristics.
| Characteristics | Treatment group ( | Observation group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 51.0 ± 7.7 | 50.2 ± 8.0 | 0.720 | 0.472 |
| Weight (kg) | 62.1 ± 9.7 | 63.5 ± 10.2 | 0.994 | 0.321 |
| Height (m) | 1.69 ± 0.1 | 1.70 ± 0.2 | 0.447 | 0.655 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.7 ± 2.5 | 22.3 ± 2.3 | 1.177 | 0.240 |
|
| 0.328 | 0.566 | ||
| Female | 56 (56.0) | 60 (60.0) | ||
| Male | 44 (44.0) | 40 (40.0) | ||
|
| ||||
|
| 0.367 | 0.544 | ||
| No | 70 (70.0) | 66 (66.0) | ||
| Yes | 30 (30.0) | 34 (34.0) | ||
|
| ||||
|
| 0.024 | 0.876 | ||
| No | 71 (71.0) | 70 (70.0) | ||
| Yes | 29 (29.0) | 30 (30.0) | ||
|
| ||||
|
| 0.734 | 0.391 | ||
| Indoor | 54 (54.0) | 60 (60.0) | ||
| Outdoor | 46 (46.0) | 40 (40.0) | ||
|
| ||||
|
| 2.504 | 0.644 | ||
| Hypertension | 33 (33.0) | 38 (38.0) | ||
| Diabetes mellitus | 3 (3.0) | 5 (5.0) | ||
| Hyperlipemia | 7 (7.0) | 12 (12.0) | ||
| Meibomian gland dysfunction | 84 (84.0) | 82 (82.0) | ||
| Xerophthalmia | 77 (77.0) | 70 (70.0) | ||
|
| ||||
|
| 0.276 | 0.599 | ||
| Resting | 22 (22.0) | 19 (19.0) | ||
| Active | 78 (78.0) | 81 (81.0) | ||
|
| ||||
| Duration of disease (years) | 4.6 ± 2.3 | 4.5 ± 2.4 | 0.300 | 0.763 |
| Distance of limbus cornea (mm) | 2.5 ± 0.7 | 2.6 ± 0.5 | 1.162 | 0.246 |
| Inserted distance from rectus muscle to limbus corn (mm) | 5.16 ± 0.15 | 5.14 ± 0.12 | 1.041 | 0.299 |
SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index; IQR, interquartile range.
The difference of postoperative complications between the two groups.
| Characteristics | Treatment group ( | Observation group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conjunctival congestion | 11 (11.0) | 30 (30.0) | 14.510 | 0.006 |
| Foreign body sensation | 20 (20.0) | 15 (15.0) | 0.865 | 0.352 |
| Eye dryness | 8 (8.0) | 29 (29.0) | 14.620 | 0.000 |
| Nebula of cornea | 9 (9.0) | 15 (15.0) | 1.705 | 0.191 |
| Corneal macula | 2 (2.0) | 12 (12.0) | 7.680 | 0.005 |
Figure 2Distribution of postoperative complications in two groups.
The difference of postoperative complications between the two groups.
| Time | Characteristics | Treatment group ( | Observation group ( | t/ |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 days | NRS score | 6.659 | 0.036 | ||
| 1 | 38 (38.0) | 31 (31.0) | |||
| 2 | 44 (44.0) | 35 (35.0) | |||
| 3 | 18 (18.0) | 34 (34.0) | |||
| Prabhasawat score | 120.000 | <0.05 | |||
| 1 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |||
| 2 | 100 (100.00) | 25 (25.0) | |||
| 3 | 0 (0.00) | 75 (75.0) | |||
| Inspection of an ocular surface comprehensive analyzer | 1.40 ± 0.18 | 1.82 ± 0.25 | 13.630 | <0.01 | |
| Corneal fluorescein staining | 3.60 ± 0.88 | 4.50 ± 1.26 | 5.856 | <0.01 | |
| Conjunctival fluorescein staining in the operation area | 0.49 ± 0.12 | 0.59 ± 0.15 | 5.206 | <0.01 | |
| Breakup time of the tear film (s) | 3.72 ± 1.05 | 2.56 ± 1.04 | 7.849 | <0.01 | |
| Repair time of the corneal wound epithelium | 8.629 | 0.003 | |||
| 3 | 84 (84.0) | 52 (52.0) | |||
| 4 | 8 (8.0) | 10 (10.0) | |||
| 5 | 4 (4.0) | 10 (10.0) | |||
| 6 | 4 (4.0) | 8 (8.0) | |||
| △Corneal astigmatism (°) | 0.33 ± 0.22 | 0.45 ± 0.35 | 2.903 | 0.004 | |
|
| |||||
| 7 days | NRS score | <0.05 | |||
| 1 | 42 (42.0) | 20 (20.0) | |||
| 2 | 48 (48.0) | 59 (59.0) | |||
| 3 | 10 (10.0) | 21 (21.0) | |||
| Prabhasawat score | <0.05 | ||||
| 1 | 9 (9.0) | 2 (2.0) | |||
| 2 | 91 (91.0) | 98 (98.0) | |||
| Inspection of the ocular surface comprehensive analyzer | 1.26 ± 0.11 | 1.45 ± 0.12 | 11.670 | <0.01 | |
| Corneal fluorescein staining | 1.40 ± 0.6 | 1.90 ± 0.55 | 6.143 | <0.01 | |
| Conjunctival fluorescein staining in the operation area | 0.13 ± 0.03 | 0.48 ± 0.15 | 22.880 | <0.01 | |
| Breakup time of the tear film (s) | 4.55 ± 1.14 | 3.21 ± 1.1 | 8.459 | <0.01 | |
|
| |||||
| 14 days | NRS score | 127.900 | <0.05 | ||
| 0 | 100 (100.00) | 22 (22.0) | |||
| 1 | 0 (0.00) | 45 (45.0) | |||
| 2 | 0 (0.00) | 32 (32.0) | |||
| 3 | 0 (0.00) | 1 (1.0) | |||
| Prabhasawat score | 36.210 | <0.05 | |||
| 1 | 63 (63.0) | 21 (21.0) | |||
| 2 | 37 (37.0) | 79 (79.0) | |||
| Inspection of the ocular surface comprehensive analyzer | 1.11 ± 0.15 | 1.39 ± 0.13 | 14.110 | <0.01 | |
| Corneal fluorescein staining | 0.24 ± 0.43 | 1.20 ± 0.45 | 15.420 | <0.01 | |
| Breakup time of the tear film (s) | 5.33 ± 1.24 | 4.35 ± 1.02 | 6.104 | <0.01 | |
|
| |||||
| 1 month | NRS score | 33.470 | <0.05 | ||
| 0 | 100 (100.00) | 64 (64.0) | |||
| 1 | 0 (0.00) | 21 (21.0) | |||
| 2 | 0 (0.00) | 2 (2.0) | |||
| 3 | 0 (0.00) | 3 (3.0) | |||
| Prabhasawat score | 56.230 | <0.05 | |||
| 1 | 78 (78.0) | 25 (25.0) | |||
| 2 | 22 (22.0) | 75 (75.0) | |||
| Inspection of the ocular surface comprehensive analyzer | 0.97 ± 0.18 | 1.25 ± 0.15 | 11.950 | <0.01 | |
| Corneal fluorescein staining | 0.04 ± 0.2 | 0.70 ± 0.21 | 22.760 | <0.01 | |
| Breakup time of the tear film (s) | 7.01 ± 1.53 | 4.32 ± 1.42 | 12.890 | <0.01 | |
|
| |||||
| 6 months | NRS score | 28.570 | <0.05 | ||
| 0 | 100 (100.00) | 75 (75.0) | |||
| 1 | 0 (0.00) | 21 (21.0) | |||
| 2 | 0 (0.00) | 4 (4.0) | |||
| Prabhasawat score | 16.260 | <0.05 | |||
| 1 | 89 (89.0) | 65 (65.0) | |||
| 2 | 11 (11.0) | 35 (25.0) | |||
| Inspection of the ocular surface comprehensive analyzer | 0.83 ± 0.13 | 1.02 ± 0.12 | 10.740 | <0.01 | |
| Corneal fluorescein staining | 0.11 ± 0.35 | 0.56 ± 0.32 | 9.489 | <0.01 | |
| Breakup time of the tear film (s) | 7.77 ± 1.35 | 4.35 ± 1.42 | 17.460 | <0.01 | |
|
| |||||
| 12 months | NRS score | 22.220 | <0.05 | ||
| 0 | 100 (100.00) | 80 (80.0) | |||
| 1 | 0 (0.00) | 19 (19.0) | |||
| 2 | 0 (0.00) | 1 (1.0) | |||
| Prabhasawat score | 11.090 | <0.05 | |||
| 1 | 93 (93.0) | 72 (72.0) | |||
| 2 | 7 (7.0) | 23 (23.0) | |||
| Inspection of the ocular surface comprehensive analyzer | 0.82 ± 0.11 | 0.98 ± 0.09 | 11.260 | <0.01 | |
| Corneal fluorescein staining | 0.14 ± 0.4 | 0.55 ± 0.35 | 7.714 | <0.01 | |
| Breakup time of the tear film (s) | 7.79 ± 1.23 | 5.02 ± 1.19 | 16.190 | <0.01 | |
SD, standard deviation; △ Change of corneal astigmatism before and after operation; NRS, numerical rating scale.
Figure 3Conjunctival manifestations before, during, and after the operation. The ocular manifestations of pterygium before operation show obvious conjunctival neovascularization and hyperemia (a). The scope of operation was determined during operation (b). Postoperative reexamination shown that ocular conjunctival congestion was significantly improved and neovascularization was significantly reduced (c).