科研之友
微信
新浪微博
Facebook
分享链接
摘要
Purpose. To assess the warming and humidifying effect and ocular safety of the Blephasteam (R) eyelid-warming device vs. warm and moist compresses in healthy volunteers. %26lt;br%26gt;Methods. Twenty subjects (8 females, 12 males; mean age 39.2 years) were included in the study. Temperature and relative humidity were measured over a period of 10 min at the lower eyelid margin of one randomly selected eye during application of the Blephasteam device and, 1 h later, during application of warm compresses (in a randomized order). Ocular signs and visual acuity were assessed before and after each application. %26lt;br%26gt;Results. The mean duration of warming (temperature %26gt;= 38 degrees C) was significantly longer with Blephasteam than with compresses (7.5 vs. 1.0 min; p %26lt; 0.01). There was no significant difference between treatments in the duration of 100% relative humidity. Compared with pretreatment values, visual acuity significantly improved after Blephasteam treatment (p %26lt; 0.05) but significantly decreased after treatment with compresses (p %26lt; 0.05). Limbal redness, eyelid redness, and corneal staining scores all improved significantly after Blephasteam treatment (p %26lt; 0.05 for all). Ocular signs did not change after compress treatment except conjunctival redness, which was significantly increased (p = 0.01 vs. pretreatment). %26lt;br%26gt;Conclusions. The Blephasteam eyelid-warming device appeared to provide more effective warming than warm and moist compresses in a group of healthy volunteers. Visual acuity, limbal redness, and eyelid redness were improved after Blephasteam use but not after treatment with compresses. (Optom Vis Sci 2012;89:E1035-E1041)
- 出版日期2012-7
