Effectiveness of Intraductal Meibomian Gland Probing in Addition to the Conventional Treatment in Patients with Obstructive Meibomian Gland Dysfunction

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of intraductal meibomian gland probing in addition to conventional treatment for the management of obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction (O-MGD). Methods: Totally, 40 patients were divided into two groups to receive either conventional treatment alone (group...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ocular immunology and inflammation 2019-11, Vol.27 (8), p.1345-1351
Main Authors: Incekalan, Tuğba Kurumoglu, Harbiyeli, Ibrahim Inan, Yagmur, Meltem, Erdem, Elif
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration & dosage
Conservative Treatment - methods
Conventional treatment
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
intraductal meibomian gland probing
Male
Massage - methods
Meibomian Gland Dysfunction - therapy
Meibomian Glands - surgery
Middle Aged
obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction
Ophthalmic Solutions
Ophthalmologic Surgical Procedures - methods
OSDI score
Punctures
rapid symptom relief
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of intraductal meibomian gland probing in addition to conventional treatment for the management of obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction (O-MGD). Methods: Totally, 40 patients were divided into two groups to receive either conventional treatment alone (group 1: 40 eyes of 20 patients) or conventional treatment plus probing (group 2: 40 eyes of 20 patients). The ocular surface disease index score, Schirmer 1 test, tear film break-up time, Oxford grading of ocular surface, meibum expressibility, and quality scores were evaluated baseline and compared with the end of treatment (day 30 and day 90). Results: There was no significant difference in baseline scores between groups (All p > 0.05). All scores demonstrated significantly improvement from baseline in both group, and it was faster in group 2 (All p 
ISSN:0927-3948
1744-5078
DOI:10.1080/09273948.2018.1522357