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.