《Table 3 Mean volume measurements of nasolacrimal ducts in patients and controls》

《Table 3 Mean volume measurements of nasolacrimal ducts in patients and controls》   提示:宽带有限、当前游客访问压缩模式
本系列图表出处文件名:随高清版一同展现
《Measuring nasolacrimal duct volume using computed tomography images in nasolacrimal duct obstruction patients in Korean》


  1. 获取 高清版本忘记账户?点击这里登录
  1. 下载图表忘记账户?点击这里登录
SD:Standard deviation.aKruskal-Wallis analysis.

This study included 39 people in the patient group(78 eyes)and 39 people in the control group(78 eyes).The sex ratio of the patient group and the control group was the same(11men and 28 women),and their average age was 55.72±14.51years old in the patient group and 53.77±13.27 years old in the control group,which did not show any significant difference(P=0.412).In the patient group,the number of patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction in one eye was 27 while 12patients had nasolacrimal duct obstruction in both eyes(Table 1).The average bilateral nasolacrimal duct volume of the patient group was 236.28±79.80 mm3,while that of the control group was 217.61±82.04 mm3.The average nasolacrimal duct volume was higher in the patient group,but was not significantly difference(P=0.132).The average nasolacrimal duct volume of obstructed eyes(39 persons,51 eyes)in all subjects in the patient group was 225.20±73.80 mm3,while that of the control group(39 persons,78 eyes)was 217.61±82.04 mm3.On comparison of obstructed eyes and normal eyes in the patient group with those in the control group,both obstructed eyes and normal eyes of the patient group showed significantly higher average values of nasolacrimal duct volume than the control group(P<0.001,P<0.001).In patients with unilateral nasolacrimal duct obstruction in the patient group(27 persons,54 eyes),the average value of the nasolacrimal duct volume of the obstructed eyes(27 eyes)was 238.91±73.49 mm3while that of normal eyes(27 eyes)on the opposite side was225.20±73.80 mm3;further,the average nasolacrimal duct volume of the obstructed eyes was higher,but the result was not significant(P=0.092).