Murakami David K, Blackie Caroline A, Korb Donald R
*OD, MPH, FAAO †OD, PHD, FAAO ‡OD, FAAO TearScience Inc, Morrisville, North Carolina (all authors); and Korb Associates, Boston, Massachusetts (all authors).
Optom Vis Sci. 2015 Sep;92(9):e327-33. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000675.
To investigate which warm compress (WC) methods used in a small case series are the most effective in providing heat to the inner eyelids for the supplemental treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction.
Inclusion criteria included the following: 18 years or older and willingness to participate in the study, no current ocular inflammation/disease, and no ocular surgery within the last 6 months. Five patients were fully consented and enrolled. Various forms of contact and noncontact WC heating methods (dry, wet/moist, and chemically activated dry heat) were tested. A paired contralateral design was used; each subject had a heated test eye and an unheated control eye. For both test and control eyes, the temperature of the external upper, external lower, and internal lower lids was measured at baseline and every 2 minutes for 10 minutes during application. Each participant underwent each of the eight treatments under study. Microwaved compresses were heated to 47 ± 1.0°C; two compresses were self-heating and thus not under investigator control.
The mean (± SD) age of the patients was 42.2 (± 20.3) years. Out of the eight methods tested, the bundled wet/moist towel method was the only compress that elevated the temperature of all three lid surfaces (external upper, external lower, and internal lower lids) to 40°C or higher. The chemically activated EyeGiene, MGDRx EyeBag, and MediBeads compresses resulted in the lowest temperature increase at the inner palpebral surface.
The Bundle method, although the most labor intensive, increased lid temperatures above therapeutic levels, as reported in the literature, for all measured sections during the WC application. As such, this method of WC application can be recommended for supplemental at-home therapy for meibomian gland dysfunction and any condition requiring that therapeutic heat of 40°C be administered to the meibomian glands.
在一个小病例系列中研究哪种热敷方法能最有效地为内眼睑提供热量,以辅助治疗睑板腺功能障碍。
纳入标准如下:年龄在18岁及以上且愿意参与研究;目前无眼部炎症/疾病;在过去6个月内未进行眼部手术。5名患者完全知情并被纳入研究。测试了各种形式的接触式和非接触式热敷加热方法(干热敷、湿/湿敷和化学激活干热)。采用配对对侧设计;每个受试者有一只热敷测试眼和一只未热敷的对照眼。对于测试眼和对照眼,在基线时以及热敷过程中每2分钟测量一次上睑外侧、下睑外侧和下睑内侧的温度,持续10分钟。每位参与者接受了所研究的八种治疗中的每一种。微波热敷加热至47±1.0°C;有两种热敷是自热的,因此不受研究者控制。
患者的平均(±标准差)年龄为42.2(±20.3)岁。在测试的八种方法中,捆绑式湿/湿敷毛巾法是唯一一种能将所有三个睑面(上睑外侧、下睑外侧和下睑内侧)的温度升高到40°C或更高的热敷方法。化学激活的EyeGiene、MGDRx EyeBag和MediBeads热敷在内睑表面导致的温度升高最低。
捆绑法虽然最耗费人力,但如文献报道,在热敷过程中,对于所有测量部位,其能将眼睑温度升高到治疗水平以上。因此,这种热敷方法可推荐用于睑板腺功能障碍的家庭辅助治疗以及任何需要将40°C治疗性热量施用于睑板腺治疗的情况。