Autologous platelet rich plasma versus punctal plugs for treatment of moderate to severe dry eye disease

Hesham A. Enany, Moustafa Salamah, R. Dessouky
{"title":"Autologous platelet rich plasma versus punctal plugs for treatment of moderate to severe dry eye disease","authors":"Hesham A. Enany, Moustafa Salamah, R. Dessouky","doi":"10.4103/ejos.ejos_17_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim To compare the outcomes of autologous platelet rich plasma (PRP) eye drops and inferior silicone punctal plugs in the treatment of moderate to severe dry eye disease (DED). Patients and methods This retrospective non-randomized comparative study included 46 patients with bilateral moderate to severe DED during the period from May 2021 to June 2022. They were divided into two groups, Group I: patients treated with autologous PRP eyedrops and Group II: patients treated with an inferior silicone punctal plug. The mean values of ocular surface disease index (OSDI), Schirmer’s test (ST), fluorescein break up time (FBUT), and corneal fluorescein staining (CFS) were calculated for each group at baseline and at 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 months follow-up. Mean posttreatment values were compared with baseline in each group. Mean values at baseline and at each follow up visit were compared between the two groups. Any complications were recorded. Results Group I included 50 eyes of 25 patients while group II included 42 eyes of 21 patients. Both groups showed statistically significant improvement in all DED parameters posttreatment compared with baseline (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding DED parameters at baseline and each follow-up visit (P>0.05). Reported complications were spontaneous loss of the plug in 19 (45.2%) eyes and persistent epiphora in 2 (4.8%) eyes in group II. No complications were noted in group I. The difference in complication rates between the two groups was highly significant (P<0.001). Conclusion Both autologous PRP eyedrops and inferior silicone punctal plugs are effective in the treatment of moderate to severe DED. However, inferior silicone punctal plugs are associated with more complications.","PeriodicalId":31572,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Egyptian Ophthalmological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Egyptian Ophthalmological Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ejos.ejos_17_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim To compare the outcomes of autologous platelet rich plasma (PRP) eye drops and inferior silicone punctal plugs in the treatment of moderate to severe dry eye disease (DED). Patients and methods This retrospective non-randomized comparative study included 46 patients with bilateral moderate to severe DED during the period from May 2021 to June 2022. They were divided into two groups, Group I: patients treated with autologous PRP eyedrops and Group II: patients treated with an inferior silicone punctal plug. The mean values of ocular surface disease index (OSDI), Schirmer’s test (ST), fluorescein break up time (FBUT), and corneal fluorescein staining (CFS) were calculated for each group at baseline and at 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 months follow-up. Mean posttreatment values were compared with baseline in each group. Mean values at baseline and at each follow up visit were compared between the two groups. Any complications were recorded. Results Group I included 50 eyes of 25 patients while group II included 42 eyes of 21 patients. Both groups showed statistically significant improvement in all DED parameters posttreatment compared with baseline (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding DED parameters at baseline and each follow-up visit (P>0.05). Reported complications were spontaneous loss of the plug in 19 (45.2%) eyes and persistent epiphora in 2 (4.8%) eyes in group II. No complications were noted in group I. The difference in complication rates between the two groups was highly significant (P<0.001). Conclusion Both autologous PRP eyedrops and inferior silicone punctal plugs are effective in the treatment of moderate to severe DED. However, inferior silicone punctal plugs are associated with more complications.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自体富血小板血浆与点塞治疗中重度干眼病的比较
目的比较自体富血小板血浆(PRP)滴眼液和硅胶泪点塞治疗中重度干眼病(DED)的疗效。患者和方法这项回顾性非随机对照研究包括2021年5月至2022年6月期间46名双侧中重度DED患者。他们被分为两组,第一组:用自体PRP滴眼液治疗的患者,第二组:用下硅胶泪点塞治疗的患者。在基线和2周、1个月和3个月的随访中,计算各组的眼表疾病指数(OSDI)、Schirmer试验(ST)、荧光素分解时间(FBUT)和角膜荧光素染色(CFS)的平均值。将各组治疗后的平均值与基线值进行比较。比较两组在基线和每次随访时的平均值。记录任何并发症。结果Ⅰ组25例50眼,Ⅱ组21例42眼。与基线相比,两组在治疗后的所有DED参数都有统计学意义的改善(P0.05)。报告的并发症是:第二组19只(45.2%)眼睛出现自发栓塞丢失,2只(4.8%)眼睛出现持续性溢泪。I组无并发症发生,两组并发症发生率差异非常显著(P<0.001)。然而,劣质硅胶泪点塞会导致更多并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊最新文献
Early versus late initiation of infliximab for refractory uveitis in a cohort of Egyptian BD patients Evaluation of macular vessel density among patients with glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal participants “A study of knowledge, attitude and practice patterns regarding eye donation, eye banking and corneal transplantation in tertiary care hospital” Impact of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to peribulbar anesthesia on the retinal vasculature in glaucoma patients: an optical coherence tomography angiography study Changes in peripapillary and macular vasculature measured by optical coherence tomography angiography and their clinical correlation in patients with optic neuritis due to multiple sclerosis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1