目的：评估Smart plug泪小管塞治疗水液缺乏型干眼的长期并发症。方法：收集汕头国际眼科中心2011至2016年门诊确诊的水液缺乏型干眼患者300例(600眼)，进行Smart plug泪小管塞治疗，随访观察术后临床并发症，中位随访时间为术后3年(术后1~5年)。结果：3例患者(3眼)术后患有泪小管炎(0.5%)，发病时间为术后1~3(中位2)年，取出泪小管塞后并给予局部抗生素滴眼液治愈。2例患者 (4眼)因植入上下泪小管塞后流泪症状不能耐受，单纯取出下泪小管塞后症状缓解(0.7%)；4例患者(8眼)因只植入下泪小管塞症状未能明显好转，1个月后再次植入上泪小管塞(1.3%)；291例患者干眼主观症状改善，有效率为97.5%，长期随访未发现并发症。结论：虽然Smart plug泪小管塞治疗水液 缺乏型干眼具有明确的疗效，但Smart plug泪小管塞植入后的长期并发症不容忽视，需要长期观察。

Objective: To evaluate the long-term complication associated with the use of the Smart plug in the treatment of aqueous tear deficiency dry eye. Methods: A total of 300 patients (600 eyes) were collected in Joint Shantou International Eye Center from 2011 to 2016, all the patients accepted the treatment with Smart plug, and were followed up for clinical complications. The median follow-up time was postoperative 3 years (1–5 years after surgery). Results: Three patients (3 eyes) developed canaliculitis, the rate was 0.5%. The median time from Smart plug insertion to the onset of canaliculitis was 2 (1–3) years, leaving the Smart plug and resolved the application of topical antibiotics. Two patients (4 eyes) could not suffer from implantation of the upper and lower Smart plug, removed the below, the ratio was 0.7%; 4 patients (8 eyes) need upper Smart plug insertion after implantation of the lower one month later, the rate was 1.3%; 291 cases of dry eye improved by long-term followup, the effective rate was 97.5%. Conclusion: Although the Smart plug is effective in the treatment of aqueous tear deffciency dry eye, the later complications of Smart plug insertion cannot be neglected and need the long-term follow-up.

目的：研究M22优化脉冲光技术治疗睑板腺功能障碍(meibomian gland dysfunction，MGD)所致干眼的疗效，并用keratograph 5M干眼分析仪分析评估患者治疗前后病情变化。方法：收集汕头博德眼科医院门诊患者46例，年龄31~85(55.39±14.02)岁，行M22优化脉冲光治疗1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泪河高度情况、泪膜破裂时间(break-up time，BUT)、脂质层、睑板腺情况的变化，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，由(0.20±0.11) mm增加到(0.35±0.11) mm，BUT时间延长，由(4.98±2.13) s延长到(10.12±1.86) s，脂质层异常情况好转，有效率达93.48%，睑板腺阻塞情况减轻，有效率达84.78%以上，治疗后与治疗前差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论：M22优化脉冲光技术在治疗MGD导致的干眼有较好的效果，没有出现并发症，是较安全有效地治疗方法，且keratograph 5M干眼分析仪可以较全面的对该病进行评估。

Objective: To study the efficacy of M22 Optimal Pulsed Technology in the treatment of dry eye caused by meibomian gland dysfunction and to evaluate the changes of patients affer treatment with keratograph 5M dry eye analyzer. Methods: Forty-six patients collected from Shantou Balder Eye Hospital receiving M22 Optimal Pulsed Technology treatment for three times, once a month, then using keratograph 5M dry eye analyzer to assess the height of tears river, break-up time (BUT), lipid layer, and meibomian gland. The results before and affer laser treatment were compared using t-test in this study. Results: Affer treatment, there was signiffcant effect than those of before treatment, the BUT time was prolonged from (0.20±0.11) mm to (0.35±0.11) mm, the abnormalities of the lipid layer were alleviated, the cure rate exceeded 93.48%, and the obstruction of the meibomian gland was reduced, the cure rate was higher than 84.78%. TTe difference before and affer corresponding treatment was statistically signiffcant (P<0.01). Conclusion: M22 Optimal Pulsed Technology has a good effect in the treatment of MGD-induced dry eye without complications. So M22 Optimal Pulsed Technology is a safe and effective treatment method. And keratograph 5M dry eye analyzer can deliver comprehensive assessment of dry eye. 

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.