Advertisement

International Ophthalmology

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 393–396 | Cite as

Dry eye and meibomian gland dysfunction in pseudophakic bullous keratopathy

  • Melis PalamarEmail author
  • Pelin Kiyat
  • Ayse Yagci
Original Paper
  • 137 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate dry eye tests and meibography of patients with pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK).

Materials and Methods

Thirty-seven patients with PBK were included. The eyes with PBK were compared with the normal pseudophakic fellow eyes. All patients had undergone a detailed ophthalmic examination including corneal and conjunctival fluorescein staining and Oxford scoring, tear film breakup time, Schirmer 1 test, Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) score assessment, lid margin abnormalities, upper and lower eyelid Meibomian gland evaluation using infrared captures of a biomicroscope. Partial or complete loss of the Meibomian glands (Meibomian dropout) was scored for each eyelid from grade 0 (no loss) through grade 3 (lost area was > 2/3 of the total meibomian gland area).

Results

The mean age of the patients was 73.2 ± 8.9 (range, 50–93). Mean tear film breakup time value was statistically lower in PBK eyes (P ≤ 0.001). OSDI, Oxford, lid margin abnormalities, inferior meibography, total meibography score were significantly higher in PBK eyes (P ≤ 0.001). The comparison of Schirmer 1 and superior meibography scores of the groups was insignificant (P = 0.143, P = 0.793, respectively).

Conclusion

The Meibomian gland morphology of the PBK eyes demonstrates significant differences when compared with normal fellow eyes and might be related to evaporative dry eye. For this reason, patients with PBK should be monitored for Meibomian gland dysfunction and when needed start prompt treatment in order to prevent further disturbance of the ocular surface.

Keywords

Bullous keratopathy Dry eye Evaporative dry eye Meibography Meibomian gland dysfunction Pseudophakic bullous keratopathy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Morishige N, Sonoda KH (2013) Bullous keratopathy as a progressive disease: evidence from clinical and laboratory imaging studies. Cornea 32(Suppl 1):S77–S83.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e3182a1bc65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaya E, Eğrilmez S, Palamar M (2015) Effect of corneal collagen cross-linking on quality of life in patients with bullous keratopathy. Turkiye Klinikleri J Ophthalmol 24:95–101.  https://doi.org/10.5336/ophthal.2014-42271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu T, Xu Y, Sun D et al (2012) Histological evaluation of corneal scar formation in pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. PLoS ONE 7(6):e39201.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Han KE, Yoon SC, Ahn JM et al (2014) Evaluation of dry eye and meibomian gland dysfunction after cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 157(6):1144–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li XM, Hu L, Hu J et al (2007) Investigation of dry eye disease and analysis of the pathogenic factors in patients after cataract surgery. Cornea 26(9 Suppl 1):S16–S20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oh T, Jung Y, Chang D et al (2012) Changes in the tear film and ocular surface after cataract surgery. Jpn J Ophthalmol 56(2):113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nelson JD, Shimazaki J, Benitez-del-Castillo JM et al (2011) The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: report of the definition and classification subcommittee. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:1930–1937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arita R, Itoh K, Maeda S et al (2009) Proposed diagnostic criteria for obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction. Ophthalmology 116(11):2058–2063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arita R, Itoh K, Inoue K et al (2008) Noncontact infrared meibography to document age-related changes of the meibomian glands in a normal population. Ophthalmology 115:911–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Palamar M, Degirmenci C, Ertam I et al (2015) Evaluation of dry eye and meibomian gland dysfunction with meibography in patients with rosacea. Cornea 34:497–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eagle RC Jr, Laibson PR, Arentsen JJ (1989) Epithelial abnormalities in chronic corneal edema: a histopathological study. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 87:107–119Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cho YK, Kim MS (2009) Dry eye after cataract surgery and associated intraoperative risk factors. Korean J Ophthalmol 23:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sutu C, Fukuoka H, Afshari NA (2016) Mechanisms and management of dry eye in cataract surgery patients. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 27:24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yagci A, Gurdal C (2014) The role and treatment of inflammation in dry eye disease. Int Ophthalmol 34:1291–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pires RT, Tseng SC, Prabhasawat P et al (1999) Amniotic membrane transplantation for symptomatic bullous keratopathy. Arch Ophthalmol 117:1291–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eom Y, Choi KE, Kang SY et al (2014) Comparison of Meibomian gland loss and expressed meibum grade between the upper and lower eyelids in patients with obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction. Cornea 33:448–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Department of OphthalmologyEge Universitesi Tip Fakultesi Hastanesi, Goz Hastaliklari ADBornova, IzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations