4.4 Article

Application of umbilical cord serum eyedrops for the treatment of dry eye syndrome

期刊

CORNEA
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 268-272

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ico.0000183484.85636.b6

关键词

dry eye syndrome; epidermal growth factor; transforming growth factor-beta; umbilical cord serum eyedrops; vitamin A

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To investigate the efficacy of umbilical cord serum eyedrops for the treatment of severe dry eye syndrome. Methods: Fifty-five eyes of 31 patients with severe dry eye syndrome were treated with umbilical cord serum eyedrops. Symptom scoring, tear film break-up time (BUT), Schirmer test, corneal sensitivity test, and corneal fluorescein staining were performed before and 1 and 2 months after treatment, and conjunctival impression cytology was performed before and 2 months after treatment. The concentrations of epidermal growth factor (EGF), vitamin A, and transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta) in umbilical cord serum and normal peripheral blood serum were measured. Results: Two months after treatment, significant improvement was observed in symptom score (from 3.07 +/- 0.54 to 0.96 +/- 0.58), BUT (from 3.96 +/- 1.56 to 5.45 +/- 2.54 seconds), and keratoepitheliopathy score (from 4.87 +/- 3.22 to 1.71 +/- 1.84) (P < 0.01). There was no statistically significant change in Schirmer and corneal sensitivity tests. In impression cytology, the grade of squamous metaplasia (from 2.35 +/- 0.72 to 1.44 +/- 0.69) and goblet cell density (from 80.91 +/- 31.53 to 154.68 +/- 43.06 cell/mm(2)) improved significantly (P < 0.01). The mean concentrations of EGF, TGF-beta, and vitamin A were 0.48 +/- 0.09, 57.14 +/- 18.98, and 230.85 +/- 13.39 ng/mL in umbilical cord serum and 0.14 +/- 0.03, 31.30 +/- 12.86, and 372.34 +/- 22.32 ng/mL in peripheral blood serum, respectively. Conclusion: Umbilical cord serum contains essential tear components, and umbilical cord serum eyedrops are effective and safe for the treatment of severe dry eye syndrome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据