May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
Clinical Evaluation of New Punctal Plug (Smart PlugTM ) for the Treatment of Dry Eye Patient That Conventional Plugs Doesn't Suit
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • T. Kojima
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Social Insurance Chukyo Hospital, Nagoya, Japan
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan
  • S. Hara
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Social Insurance Chukyo Hospital, Nagoya, Japan
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan
  • R. Ishida
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan
  • E. Goto
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan
  • D. Murat
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan
  • K. Tsubota
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  T. Kojima, None; S. Hara, None; R. Ishida, None; E. Goto, None; D. Murat, None; K. Tsubota, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 2044. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      T. Kojima, S. Hara, R. Ishida, E. Goto, D. Murat, K. Tsubota; Clinical Evaluation of New Punctal Plug (Smart PlugTM ) for the Treatment of Dry Eye Patient That Conventional Plugs Doesn't Suit . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):2044.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: Smart Plug is a new generation of thermo–sensitive punctum plug which is solid at room temperature but becomes a soft gel with expansion in size at body temperatures. We evaluated the efficacy of this new punctual plug in the treatment of conventional plug non–suitable dry eyes. Methods: 18 eyes of 10 dry eye patients (Sjögren syndrome:6 patients ,Non–Sjögren syndrome: 3 patients, GVHD: 1 patient ) who previously received conventional plug insertion were enrolled in this study. Conventional punctal plugs were not suitable in these patients because of severe foreign body sensation, recurrent extrusion, granuloma formation and conjunctival laceration. Schirmer 1 test, vital staining scores (fluorescein and Rose–Bengal), tear clearance tests were performed before plug insertion, 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 month after insertion. Results: Although Schirmer test values were not significantly different before and after plug insertion, (Before: 4.4±2.6 mm,After: 5.2±4.3 mm) the tear clearance rate significantly decreased after plug insertion (Before: 14.8±11.4,After: 8.2±6.6) (P < 0.05). Rose–Bengal score improved significantly after plug insertion (Before 6.4±2.0, After 3.3±1.6 points) (P < 0.05). Fluorescein score also improved significantly with plug insertion (Before 4.8±2.3, After 2.1±1.3) (P < 0.05). No complications including granulation and conjuntival laceration after smart plug insertion were observed. Conclusions: Smart PlugTM proved to be a safe and an efficient option in the treatment of dry eyes. This plug seems to be suitable for patients with complications of conventional plugs such as frequent extrusion, granuloma formation and conjunctival laceration.

Keywords: cornea: tears/tear film/dry eye • cornea: clinical science • cornea: epithelium 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×