Comparative Study of Dry Eye after Phacoemulsification and Manual SICS in Tertiary Centre of Jharkhand

P. Kumari, M. D. Lakra
{"title":"Comparative Study of Dry Eye after Phacoemulsification and Manual SICS in Tertiary Centre of Jharkhand","authors":"P. Kumari, M. D. Lakra","doi":"10.21276/ijcmr.2019.6.11.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Cataract is the major cause of blindness in the developing world. Study aimed at evaluation of tear film stability and tear secretion after phacoemulsification compared with MSICS. Material and methods: This prospective comparative randomized study was performed in a tertiary centre of Jharkhand between June 2018 to March 2019. 187 patients with senile cataract were included in this study. Group A had 110 patients undergoing MSICS and group B 77 patients undergoing phacoemulsification. Dry eye symptoms(DES) characterizedby redness, burning, stinging, foreign body sensation, photophobia. Corneal fluorescein staining was performed. Basal Schirmer test was performed for assessment of aqueous tear production. Patients were examined post operatively on 1st week, 4th week and 3rd month. Results: Out of 187 patients 103(55.08%) were male and 84(44.91%) were female. Grade of DES increased significantly 1 week after each procedure compared to pre-operative data and remained increased after 4 weeks of surgery. After 3 months the symptoms decreased and returned to baseline data. Conclusion: MSICS is as effective as phacoemulsification with no difference between both techniques regarding tear film stability and tear secretion.","PeriodicalId":13918,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Contemporary Medical Research [IJCMR]","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Contemporary Medical Research [IJCMR]","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21276/ijcmr.2019.6.11.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: Cataract is the major cause of blindness in the developing world. Study aimed at evaluation of tear film stability and tear secretion after phacoemulsification compared with MSICS. Material and methods: This prospective comparative randomized study was performed in a tertiary centre of Jharkhand between June 2018 to March 2019. 187 patients with senile cataract were included in this study. Group A had 110 patients undergoing MSICS and group B 77 patients undergoing phacoemulsification. Dry eye symptoms(DES) characterizedby redness, burning, stinging, foreign body sensation, photophobia. Corneal fluorescein staining was performed. Basal Schirmer test was performed for assessment of aqueous tear production. Patients were examined post operatively on 1st week, 4th week and 3rd month. Results: Out of 187 patients 103(55.08%) were male and 84(44.91%) were female. Grade of DES increased significantly 1 week after each procedure compared to pre-operative data and remained increased after 4 weeks of surgery. After 3 months the symptoms decreased and returned to baseline data. Conclusion: MSICS is as effective as phacoemulsification with no difference between both techniques regarding tear film stability and tear secretion.
贾坎德邦三级中心超声乳化术与手工超声乳化术后干眼的比较研究
白内障是发展中国家致盲的主要原因。研究目的是评价超声乳化术后泪液膜稳定性和泪液分泌情况。材料和方法:这项前瞻性比较随机研究于2018年6月至2019年3月在贾坎德邦的一个三级中心进行。本研究纳入了187例老年性白内障患者。A组110例行mscs, B组77例行超声乳化术。干眼症状(DES)以发红、灼烧、刺痛、异物感、畏光为特征。角膜荧光素染色。基底Schirmer试验用于评估含水泪液的产生。术后第1周、第4周、第3个月复查。结果:187例患者中,男性103例(55.08%),女性84例(44.91%)。与术前相比,每次手术后1周DES评分显著上升,4周后仍保持上升。3个月后症状减轻并恢复到基线数据。结论:超声乳化术与超声乳化术在泪膜稳定性和泪液分泌方面无明显差异。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信