All participants were provided both verbal and written informed consent before any study procedure. The protocol of the study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local Institutional Review Board.
1. Automated Ocular Surface Workup
2. Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) treatment
3. Post-treatment Therapy
4. Post-treatment Assessment
Nineteen patients (7 males and 12 females, mean age 39.3 ± 7.0 years) (mean ± standard deviation) underwent IPL treatment between September 2016 and June 2017. Fifteen days after the third IPL treatment session, noninvasive BUT significantly increased from 7.6 ± 0.6 s to 9.8 ± 0.7 s (mean ± standard error of the mean) (p = 0.017), and LLT grade significantly improved from 2.3 ± 0.1 to 3.4 ± 0.3 (p = 0.003). No statistically significant changes were found for MGL and tear osmolarity (23.9 ± 3.6% vs 25.4 ± 2.6% and 304.5 ± 2.4 mΩ/L vs 300.6 ± 2.4 mΩ/L, respectively; always p>0.05) (Figure 2). In addition, mean OSDI score did not differ significantly before and after the last treatment session (p>0.05).
Seventeen patients (89.5% of the total) showed an improvement of ocular discomfort symptoms after the treatment (mean grade 2.0 ± 1.2 out of 4). Figure 3 shows the distribution of patients' perceived improvement in symptoms according to the 5-grade scale. The perceived improvement in symptoms was significantly correlated with the improvement of LLT after the treatment (r = 0.476, p = 0.039).
Figure 1. Treatment area. The treatment area includes the lower eyelid, from the inner to the lateral canthus, the cheekbone and the temporal zone. Each red rectangle schematically represents the site of a single IPL pulse application. The numbers indicate the sequence of IPL pulse applications. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2. Automated ocular surface workup before and after the treatment. Noninvasive BUT, lipid layer thickness (LLT), meibomian gland loss (MGL) and tear osmolarity before and 15 days after the third intense pulsed light treatment session. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3. Patients' perceived improvement in dry eye symptoms after the treatment. The distribution of the patients according to the 5-grade scale about their perceived improvement in symptoms assessed 15 days after the third intense pulsed light treatment session. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
I.C.P. Tearscope | SBM Sistemi, Turin, Italy | 1340864/R | Device for noninvasvive break-up time and lipid layer thickness evaluation |
I.C.P. MGD | SBM Sistemi, Turin, Italy | 15006 | Device performing infrared meibomography and meibomian gland loss evaluation |
TearLab Osmolarity System | TearLab Corporation, San Diego, CA, USA | 83861QW | Device for the measurement of tear osmolarity |
E>Eye | E-Swin, Paris, France | Intense pulsed regulated light treatment device | |
BM 900 Slit Lamp Biomioscropy | Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland | BM 900 | Slit Lamp Biomiscroscopy |
Tobradex eye drops | Alcon Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA | S01CA01 | Eye drops instilled immediately after the procedure in office |
Dry eye disease (DED) is an increasingly common condition and one of the most common complaints of patients. The vast majority of DED is caused by the so-called "evaporative" subtype, that is mainly caused by meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Intense pulsed light (IPL) devices employ high intensity pulses of polychromatic lights with a broad range of wavelength (515-1200 nm). IPL treatment has been utilized for years in the field of dermatology, and then its use was applied to ophthalmology for the treatment of MGD. Recently, a new device employing IPL was specifically designed for the periocular application. This procedure determines the thermal selective coagulation and ablation of superficial blood vessels and telangiectasias of the eyelids skin, reducing the release of inflammatory mediators and tear cytokines levels, and improving meibomian glands outflow. IPL treatment is noninvasive and easy to perform, lasts for only a few minutes and can be conducted in an office setting. In the present study, 19 patients underwent 3 sessions of IPL treatment. After treatment, both mean noninvasive break-up time and lipid layer thickness grade significantly increased, as a result of an improvement of tear film stability and quality, respectively. Conversely, no statistically significant changes were found for meibomian gland loss and tear osmolarity. Furthermore, the vast majority of the treated patients (17/19; 89.5% of the total) perceived an improvement of their ocular discomfort symptoms after IPL treatment. Although IPL treatment provides an improvement of both ocular surface parameters and ocular discomfort symptoms after one cycle of three sessions, regular repeated treatments are usually required to maintain the persistence over the time of its beneficial effects.
Dry eye disease (DED) is an increasingly common condition and one of the most common complaints of patients. The vast majority of DED is caused by the so-called "evaporative" subtype, that is mainly caused by meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Intense pulsed light (IPL) devices employ high intensity pulses of polychromatic lights with a broad range of wavelength (515-1200 nm). IPL treatment has been utilized for years in the field of dermatology, and then its use was applied to ophthalmology for the treatment of MGD. Recently, a new device employing IPL was specifically designed for the periocular application. This procedure determines the thermal selective coagulation and ablation of superficial blood vessels and telangiectasias of the eyelids skin, reducing the release of inflammatory mediators and tear cytokines levels, and improving meibomian glands outflow. IPL treatment is noninvasive and easy to perform, lasts for only a few minutes and can be conducted in an office setting. In the present study, 19 patients underwent 3 sessions of IPL treatment. After treatment, both mean noninvasive break-up time and lipid layer thickness grade significantly increased, as a result of an improvement of tear film stability and quality, respectively. Conversely, no statistically significant changes were found for meibomian gland loss and tear osmolarity. Furthermore, the vast majority of the treated patients (17/19; 89.5% of the total) perceived an improvement of their ocular discomfort symptoms after IPL treatment. Although IPL treatment provides an improvement of both ocular surface parameters and ocular discomfort symptoms after one cycle of three sessions, regular repeated treatments are usually required to maintain the persistence over the time of its beneficial effects.
Dry eye disease (DED) is an increasingly common condition and one of the most common complaints of patients. The vast majority of DED is caused by the so-called "evaporative" subtype, that is mainly caused by meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Intense pulsed light (IPL) devices employ high intensity pulses of polychromatic lights with a broad range of wavelength (515-1200 nm). IPL treatment has been utilized for years in the field of dermatology, and then its use was applied to ophthalmology for the treatment of MGD. Recently, a new device employing IPL was specifically designed for the periocular application. This procedure determines the thermal selective coagulation and ablation of superficial blood vessels and telangiectasias of the eyelids skin, reducing the release of inflammatory mediators and tear cytokines levels, and improving meibomian glands outflow. IPL treatment is noninvasive and easy to perform, lasts for only a few minutes and can be conducted in an office setting. In the present study, 19 patients underwent 3 sessions of IPL treatment. After treatment, both mean noninvasive break-up time and lipid layer thickness grade significantly increased, as a result of an improvement of tear film stability and quality, respectively. Conversely, no statistically significant changes were found for meibomian gland loss and tear osmolarity. Furthermore, the vast majority of the treated patients (17/19; 89.5% of the total) perceived an improvement of their ocular discomfort symptoms after IPL treatment. Although IPL treatment provides an improvement of both ocular surface parameters and ocular discomfort symptoms after one cycle of three sessions, regular repeated treatments are usually required to maintain the persistence over the time of its beneficial effects.