A novel method of complex evaluation of meibomian glands morphological and functional state

A novel method that provides complex assessment of meibomian glands morphological and functional state — biometry of meibomian glands — was developed. The results of complex examination (including meibomian glands biometry), correlation analysis data and clinical findings demonstrate direct association between the objective (i.e., meibomian glands dysfunction by biomicroscopy, tear film break-up time / TBUT, symptomatic TBUT, compression testing) and subjective signs of meibomian glands dysfunction (patient’s complaints) and the parameters of meibomian glands biometry. High direct correlation between biometrical index and compression test result was revealed (p = 0.002, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.6644). Meibomian glands dysfunction is characterized by biometric parameters abnormalities, i.e., dilatation of meibomian glands orifices, decrease of distance between meibomian glands orifices, partial or total atrophy of meibomian glands (even up to gland collapse with its visual reduction and increase of distance between the glands). The suppression of inflammatory process and the recovery of meibomian glands secretion improve biometric parameters and result in the opening of meibomian glands orifices, liquefaction of clogs, evacuation of meibomian glands secretion, narrowing of meibomian glands orifices and increase of distance between them. The proposed method expands the armamentarium of meibomian glands dysfunction and lipid-deficient dry eye diagnosing. Meibomian glands biometry can be applied in specialized ophthalmological hospitals and outpatient departments. It is a simple procedure of short duration that does not require any special equipment or professional skills. Meibomian glands biometry enables to prescribe pathogenically targeted therapy and to improve quality of life.

1. Kelly K. Nichols1, Gary N. Foulks, et al. The International Workshop on Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: Executive Sammary. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52: 1922‑1929,

2. Lemp MA, Nichols KK. Blepharitis in the United States 2009: a survey-based perspective on prevalence and treatment. Ocul Surf. 2009;7: S1 — S14.

3. Korb DR, Herman JP, Blackie CA, et al. Prevalence of lid wiper epitheliopathy in subjects with dry eye signs and symptoms. Cornea 2010;29:377‑383.

4. Definition and classification of dry eye. Report of the diagnosis and classification Subcommittee of the Dry Eye Workshop (DEWS). The Ocular Surface 2007; 5 (2): 75‑92.

5. Sullivan BD, Whitmer D, Nichols KK, et al. An objective approach to dry eye disease severity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51 (12):6125‑30. Epub 2010 Jul 14.

6. Geerling G, Tauber J, Baudouin C, et al. The International Workshop on Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: Report of the Subcommittee on Management and Treatment of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;

7. : 2050‑2064.

8. Yokoi N., Bron A., Tiffany J., Brown N., et al. Reflective meniscometry: a non-invasive method to measure tear meniscus curvature. Br. J. Ophthalmology 1999; 83: 92‑97.

9. Lucevich E. Je. Labidi A. [Biometrics of a plaintive stream as method of an assessment of basal secretion of a tear production. Modern methods of diagnostics and ocenki bazal’noj sekrecii slezoprodukcii. Sovremennye metody diagnostiki i lechenija zabolevanij sleznyh organov. 2005; М: 190‑195. (in Russ.).

10. Egorova G. B., Novikov I. A., Mitichkina T. S. [Improvement and assessment of opportunities of a method of a tiaskopiya]. Sovershenstvovanie i ocenka vozmozhnostej metoda tiaskopii. Vestn. oftal’mol. 2011;127 (6): 35‑40. (in Russ.).

11. Iskeleli, G. Tear film osmolarity in patients with thyroid ophthalmopathy / G. Iskeleli, Y. Karakoc, A. Abdula. Japanese

12. Journal of Ophthalmology. 2008;52 (4): 323‑326.

13. Yamada M., Mochizuki H., Kawai M. Fluorophotometric measurement of pH of human tears in vivo. Curr Eye Res. 1997;16 (5): 482‑486.

14. Bron AJ, Evans VE, Smith JA. Grading of corneal and conjunctival staining in the context of other dry eye tests. Cornea 2003; 22 (7): 640‑650.

15. Lee S. H., Tseng S. C. Rose Bengal staining and cytologic characteristics associated with lipid tear deficiency. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997; 124 (6): 736‑750.

16. Brzheskij V. V., Astahov Ju. S., Kuznecova N. Ju. [Diseases of the plaintive device]. Zabolevanija sleznogo apparata. [Grant f or practicing doctors]. Posobie dlja praktikujushhih vrachej: 2 изд., испр. и доп. — СПб: Изд-во Н-Л, 2009. — 108 p. (in Russ.).

17. Shimazaki J., Sakata M., Tsubota K. Ocular surface changes and discomfort in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999; 113 (10): 1266‑1270.

18. Pimenidi M. K. [Diagnostics and treatment changes of eye surface at a computer visual syndrome]. Diagnostika i lechenie izmenenij poverhnosti glaza pri komp’juternom zritel’nom sindrome: [Abstract cand. Diss. medical sciences].. М.,2010: 21‑22. (in Russ.).

19. A. O. Zabegajlo, T. N. Safonova, I. A. Makarov [New way in determination severity of blefaroconjyunctive form of «dry eye»]. Novyj sposob opredelenija stepeni tjazhesti blefarokon#junktival’noj formy sindroma «suhogo glaza». [Cataract and refraction surgery Kataraktal’naja i refrakcionnaja hirurgija 2013; 13 (1): 35‑38. (in Russ.).

20. Majchuk Ju. F., Mironkova E. A. [Dysfunction classification the meyby glands, combined with a syndrome dry eye, pathogenetic approaches to complex therapy]. Klassifikacija disfunkcii mejbomievyh zhelez, sochetajushheesja s sindromom suhogo glaza, patogeneticheskie podhody k kompleksnoj terapii. [RMZh «Clinical Ophthalmology]. RMZh «Klinicheskaja oftal’mologija» М:, 2007;.8 (4): 169‑172. (in Russ.).

21. Hom MM, Martinson JR, Knapp LL, Paugh JR. Prevalence of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction. Optom Vis Sci.1990;67:710‑712.

22. Gilbard JP. Dry eye and blephariitis: approaching the patient with chronic eye irritation. Geriatrics. 2009; 64 (6):22‑6.