Skip to main content
. 2016 Nov 18;9(11):1598–1607. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2016.11.10

Table 6. Comparison between the thermosensitive (study group 1) and silicone plug (study group 2) as regards microscopic features of conjunctival impression cytology before and after treatment.

Grading Group 1
Group 2
Baseline (n=45) 3mo (n=45) 6mo (n=45) Baseline (n=45) 3mo (n=39) 6mo (n=24)
Cohesion power
 Grade 1 0.0 0.0 36.0 (80.0) 0.0 0.0 7.0 (29.2)
 Grade 2 35.0 (77.8) 35.0 (77.8) 0.0 35.0 (77.8) 29.0 (74.4) 9.0 (37.5)
 Grade 3 10.0 (22.2) 10.0 (22.2) 9.0 (20.0) 10.0 (22.2) 10.0 (25.6) 8.0 (33.3)
Cell size
 -1 10.0 (22.2) 10.0 (22.2) 10.0 (22.2) 10.0 (22.2) 10.0 (25.6) 8.0 (33.3)
 0 0.0 0.0 35.0 (77.8) 0.0 0.0 5.0 (20.8)
 1 35.0 (77.8) 35.0 (77.8) 0.0 35.0 (77.8) 29.0 (74.4) 11.0 (45.9)
N/C ratio
 1:3 0.0 0.0 16.0 (35.6) 0.0 0.0 3.0 (12.5)
 1:4 18.0 (40.0) 18.0 (40.0) 11.0 (24.4) 18.0 (40.0) 14.0 (35.9) 6.0 (25.0)
 1:5 17.0 (37.8) 17.0 (37.8) 8.0 (17.8) 17.0 (37.8) 15.0 (38.5) 7.0 (29.2)
 1:6 4.0 (8.9) 4.0 (8.9) 4.0 (8.9) 4.0 (8.9) 4.0 (10.3) 2.0 (8.3)
 1:7 6.0 (13.3) 6.0 (13.3) 6.0 (13.3) 6.0 (13.3) 6.0 (15.3) 6.0 (25.0)
Distribution of goblet cells (in 4 HPF)
 Absent 10.0 (22.2) 10.0 (22.2) 4.0 (8.9) 10.0 (22.2) 10.0 (25.6) 8.0 (33.3)
 Present 35.0 (77.8) 35.0 (77.8) 41.0 (91.1) 35.0 (77.8) 29.0 (74.4) 16.0 (66.7)
Degree of keratinization
 Absent 0.0 0.0 36.0 (80.0) 0.0 0.0 7.0 (29.2)
 Mild 10.0 (22.2) 10.0 (22.2) 9.0 (20.0) 10.0 (22.2) 29.0 (74.4) 0.0
 Moderate 35.0 (77.8) 35.0 (77.8) 0.0 35.0 (77.8) 10.0 (25.6) 17.0 (70.8)
Overall conjunctival impression cytology grading
 Grade 1 0.0 0.0 28.0 (62.2) 0.0 0.0 14.0 (58.3)
 Grade 2 28.0 (62.2) 28.0 (62.2) 0.0 (0.0) 28.0 (62.2) 22.0 (56.4) 0.0
 Grade 3 17.0 (37.8) 17.0 (37.8) 17.0 (37.8) 17.0 (37.8) 17.0 (43.6) 10.0 (41.7)

HPF: High power field.

n (%)