AIM： To evaluate the effect of punctal occlusion using thermosensitive（smart plug） versus silicone plug for management of aqueous deficient dry eye on cornea sensitivity, ocular surface health and tear film stabili...AIM： To evaluate the effect of punctal occlusion using thermosensitive（smart plug） versus silicone plug for management of aqueous deficient dry eye on cornea sensitivity, ocular surface health and tear film stability.METHODS： A comparative prospective interventiona case study included 45 patients with bilateral severe form of aqueous deficient dry eye. In each patient, the smar plug was inserted in the lower punctum of the right eye which was considered as study group 1 and silicone plug was inserted in the lower punctum of the left eye o the same patient which was considered as study group2. All patients were subjected to careful history taking and questionnaire for subjective assessment of severity of symptoms. Corneal sensitivity, corneal fluorescein rose bengal staining, Schirmer＇s I test, tear film break up time and conjunctival impression cytology were performed pre and 1, 3 and 6mo post plug insertion.RESULTS： A statistically significant improvement in subjective and objective manifestations occurred following treatment with both types of plugs（P 〈0.01）The thermosensitive plug caused significant overal improvement, decrease in frequency of application o tear substitutes and improvement of conjunctiva impression cytology parameters in the inserted side（P 〈0.01）. Canaliculitis was reported in two eyes（4.4% following punctal occlusion using thermosensitive plug（study group 1）. Spontaneous plug loss occurred in 21eyes（46.6%） in the silicone plug group（study group 2）.CONCLUSION： Improvement of subjective and objective manifestations of aqueous deficient dry eye occurs following punctal plug occlusion. Thermosensitive plug has good patient＇s compliance with fewer complications and lower rates of loss compared to the silicone plug.展开更多
文摘AIM： To evaluate the effect of punctal occlusion using thermosensitive（smart plug） versus silicone plug for management of aqueous deficient dry eye on cornea sensitivity, ocular surface health and tear film stability.METHODS： A comparative prospective interventiona case study included 45 patients with bilateral severe form of aqueous deficient dry eye. In each patient, the smar plug was inserted in the lower punctum of the right eye which was considered as study group 1 and silicone plug was inserted in the lower punctum of the left eye o the same patient which was considered as study group2. All patients were subjected to careful history taking and questionnaire for subjective assessment of severity of symptoms. Corneal sensitivity, corneal fluorescein rose bengal staining, Schirmer＇s I test, tear film break up time and conjunctival impression cytology were performed pre and 1, 3 and 6mo post plug insertion.RESULTS： A statistically significant improvement in subjective and objective manifestations occurred following treatment with both types of plugs（P 〈0.01）The thermosensitive plug caused significant overal improvement, decrease in frequency of application o tear substitutes and improvement of conjunctiva impression cytology parameters in the inserted side（P 〈0.01）. Canaliculitis was reported in two eyes（4.4% following punctal occlusion using thermosensitive plug（study group 1）. Spontaneous plug loss occurred in 21eyes（46.6%） in the silicone plug group（study group 2）.CONCLUSION： Improvement of subjective and objective manifestations of aqueous deficient dry eye occurs following punctal plug occlusion. Thermosensitive plug has good patient＇s compliance with fewer complications and lower rates of loss compared to the silicone plug.
