CHALAZIUM TREATMENT: COMPARISON BETWEEN CONSERVATIVE AND SURGICAL APPROACHES

Abstract

Chalazion is a chronic inflammation of a meibomian gland, located in the eyelids. It is characterized by a painless, slow-growing nodule that can cause visual and aesthetic discomfort. The treatment of chalazion has been the subject of several investigations, with the aim of finding the most effective and safe approach for patients. Traditionally, conservative treatment was the first line, using hot compresses and eyelid massage. However, with the advancement of surgical techniques, incision and curettage have become increasingly popular. Given this diversity of approaches, this systematic literature review sought to compare the effectiveness and safety of different therapeutic options for chalazion. Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness and safety of conservative and surgical approaches to the treatment of chalazion, based on scientific studies published in the last 10 years. Methodology: The systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed, Scielo and Web of Science databases were used to search for scientific articles published in the last 10 years. The descriptors used in the search were: chalazion, treatment, conservative approach, surgery and meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Randomized and controlled clinical studies, cohort studies and case series that compared different therapeutic approaches for chalazion were included. Animal studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. The inclusion criteria were: patients diagnosed with chalazion, comparison between conservative and surgical approaches and evaluation of results in terms of chalazion resolution, recovery time and complications. The exclusion criteria were: studies with less than 10 patients, studies with a follow-up of less than 3 months and studies that did not use objective outcome measures. Results: The search in the databases resulted in a large number of articles, from which we selected those who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results of the included studies demonstrated that both conservative and surgical approaches are effective for treating chalazion. However, surgery had faster resolution rates and a lower recurrence rate. Regarding complications, both approaches presented a similar safety profile, with a low risk of adverse events. Conclusion: The systematic review demonstrated that both conservative treatment and surgery are effective for treating chalazion. The choice of therapeutic approach must be individualized, taking into account the characteristics of the chalazion, the patient's preferences and the professional's experience. The conservative approach can be considered as the first line of treatment, especially in cases of smaller and less symptomatic chalazions. However, in cases of chalazions refractory to conservative treatment, surgery may be indicated. It is important to highlight that the treatment of chalazion must be monitored by an ophthalmologist, who can indicate the best approach for each case.