目的：调查干眼在郑州市机关工作者中的患病情况，分析相关危险因素，为有效防治干眼提供科学依据。方法：选取2019年9月到2020年9月在郑州大学第一附属医院体检的郑州市机关工作者873例。采用自行设计的一般资料问卷和OCULUS Jenvis-OSDI干眼问卷进行调查，记录评分结果，同时检查记录裂隙灯、角膜荧光素染色评分(corneal fluorescein staining score，FL)、基础泪液分泌实验(Schimier I test，SIT)、泪膜破裂时间(tear break-up time，BUT)测定结果。统计分析机关工作者干眼患病率与危险因素。结果：体检的873例郑州市机关工作者中360例诊断为干眼，干眼总患病率为41.24%，女性患病率(44.62%)明显高于男性(36.26%)，差异有统计学意义(P=0.014)。干眼问卷OSDI评分与FL评分呈正相关，BUT与SIT呈正相关，OSDI(和FL评分)与BUT(和SIT)呈负相关。Logistics多因素分析表明：干眼家族史、绝经、曾行眼部手术、滴眼液使用情况、长时间佩戴角膜接触镜、长时间操作视频终端、睡眠不足、糖尿病史是机关工作者干眼患病的危险因素(均P<0.05)，而饮酒是保护因素(P=0.001)。结论：机关工作者干眼患病率较高，危险因素囊括家族患干眼史、绝经、曾行眼部手术、滴眼液使用情况、长时间佩戴角膜接触镜、长时间操作视频终端、睡眠不足、糖尿病病史。加强干眼防治的宣传教育，针对不同危险因素提供眼健康指导并进行防控治疗，保护机关工作者的眼健康。

Objective: To investigate and analyze the prevalence of dry eyes in Zhengzhou office workers, and identify the related risk factors in order to provide evidence for effective prevention and treatment. Methods: We selected 873 cases of Zhengzhou office workers who had checkup in our hospital from September 2019 to September 2020 as the research subjects. They were investigated with self-designed general information questionnaire and OCULUS Jenvis-OSDI dry eye questionnaire and scores of the questionnaires will be assessed. At the same time,they underwent dry-eye-related inspections such as slit lamp examination, corneal fluorescein staining score (FL), Schimier I test (SIT) and tear break-up time (BUT) assessment. The prevalence and risk factors of dry eyes in these office workers were statistically analyzed. Results: Among 873 Zhengzhou office workers, 360 cases were diagnosed as dry eyes, and the total prevalence of dry eye was 41.24%. The female prevalence rate was 44.62%, which was significantly higher than that of male (36.26%, P=0.014). OSDI scores and FL scores were positively correlation as well as BUT and SIT, while OSDI (and FL) and BUT (and SIT) were negatively correlation. Logistic multivariate analysis showed that dry eyes family history, menopause, ocular surgery history, eye drops using, long time corneal contact lenses wearing, long time video terminal operating, lack of sleep and diabetes history were independent risk factors in office workers’ dry eye disease (all P<0.05), while drinking was protective factor (P=0.001). Conclusion: The dry eyes prevalence is high among office workers. The risk factors include dry eye family history, menopause, ocular surgery history, eye drops using, long time corneal contact lenses wearing, long time video terminal operating, lack of sleep and diabetes history. We should strengthen the publicity and education of the dry eye prevention and treatment, provide eye health guidance, prevention and treatment according to different risk factors, and protect the office workers’ eye health.

目的：对比两种不同部位M22优化脉冲激光治疗方法治疗睑板腺功能障碍(meibomian gland dysfunction，MGD)所致干眼的疗效。方法：回顾性分析汕头博德眼科医院干眼门诊患者105例，包括常规治疗组和改良治疗组两个组别，常规治疗组激光部位为下睑，改良治疗组激光部位为联合上下睑，所有患者行M22优化脉冲光治疗一个疗程(每月1次，共3次)，治疗前后均采用keratograph 5M干眼分析仪分析评估患者的泪河高度情况、泪膜破裂时间(break-up time，BUT)、角膜荧光染色(corneal fluorescence staining，CFS)和睑板腺排出能力等参数。采用t检验分析对比治疗前后变化情况。结果：患者治疗后泪河高度较强脉冲光治疗前明显增高，BUT时间延长，角膜荧光染色和睑板腺排出能力评分均有好转，每组治疗后与治疗前差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)，两组间治疗前后各参数差异比较均没有统计学意义。结论：两种不同部位M22优化脉冲激光治疗方法在治疗MGD导致的干眼方面有较好的效果，是较安全有效地治疗方法，两种不同方法治疗效果无明显差异。

Objective: To study the efficacy of two methods of M22 optimal pulsed technology in the treatment of dry eye caused by meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Methods: A total of 105 patients collected from Shantou Balder Eye Hospital were divided into two groups. The treatment position of the conventional group was lower eyelid, the other group was combined with upper and lower eyelid. All patients accepted M22 Optimal Pulsed Technology treatment for three times, once a month. Keratograph 5M dry eye analyzer was used to assess the height of tears river, break-up time (BUT), corneal fluorescence Staining(CFS)and meibomian gland expressibility. The results before and after laser treatment were compared using t-test in this study. Results: After treatment, the height of tear river, BUT, CFS and meibomian gland expressibility were improved. There was a statistically significant difference between each group after and before treatment (P<0.01). There was no significant difference before and after treatment between the two groups. Conclusion: The two methods of M22 Optimal Pulsed Technology are effective in treating dry eyes caused by MGD. There is no significant difference in the therapeutic effect between two methods.