“Review of Literature on Intraductal Meibomian Gland Probing with Insights from the Inventor and Developer: Fundamental Concepts and Misconceptions”
For the full article with a PDF download available just click this link now.
Reading research is something of a challenge for a non-scientist, non-medical person like me. What I do first in reading an article of this type is to read the abstract. The abstract is at the beginning of the article. It gives sort of the bottom line of the research. Sort of like what some call an Executive Summary. You can see the whole abstract further below. But first a bit of “my take”.
My biggest takeaway from the abstract, was to give me greater assurance that my decision to have Meibomian gland probing was a good one. I only wish I had learned about it sooner than 10 years plus into my Dry Eye Disease. Then to be honest, I probably would not have done it 10 years ago. At that time the science on the procedure was very thin indeed. I would not have been convinced then. I certainly would not have been desperate enough. After all Restasis was doing well for me in the beginning or so I thought.
The bad news I did not know, and my three well-meaning eye doctors did not tell me, was things were getting worse in the background as time marched on. Their “standard care” was covering the core problem with some symptom relief while the core of the problem, Meibomian gland dysfunction, continued to get worse. Thus, I was one of those, as referred to in the study, who was doing worse in spite of doing a great deal of standard care over the 10 years before I learned about Meibomian gland probing. My story is not an uncommon story. Here is the abstract and see what you think.
Obstructive Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) affects millions of patients around the world. Its effective treatment with intraductal Meibomian gland probing (MGP), was first reported in 2010. Since then, MGP has provided relief to thousands of patients globally suffering with refractory MGD. The purpose of Meibomian gland probing is restoring the integrity of the gland’s central duct by entering the gland through the natural orifice, releasing fixed obstruction thought to be periductal fibrosis, thereby establishing and/or confirming the patency of the duct, and concurrently equilibrating intraductal pressure as well as promoting gland functionality with meibum production. There may or may not be immediate secretion of meibum upon successful restoration of ductal integrity depending on the gland’s state of function and degree of atrophy. One double-blind placebo-controlled study has been conducted and, with the accumulated evidence of over 12 other peer reviewed articles in the scientific literature, overwhelmingly indicates that MGP is a safe and effective treatment for the MGD patient refractory to prior standard care and as a first-line treatment. This paper describes relevant fundamental concepts, dispels commonly held misconceptions, and provides an objective review of the current understanding and effectiveness of MGP for the treatment of obstructive MGD. Our analysis will better equip clinicians to draw informed conclusions about both subjective and objective findings reported in MGP studies and researchers to design future robust studies that provide meaningful results.
After reading this post maybe you have further questions. Great! That is what we are here for. To get them answered at no cost to you by a patient advocate via email or by telephone just fill out this short form now.
Patient Advocate Volunteer
Not A Dry Eye Foundation
Send your questions and comments to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Subscribe to our blog to keep up with Not A Dry Eye.