Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of low-level light therapy (LLLT) and intense pulsed light (IPL) for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Methods: Forty eyes of 40 patients with MGD were randomized to receive either LLLT or IPL. Four weekly sessions of LLLT (MY MASK-E, Espansione Marketing S.p.A., Bologna, Italy) and IPL (Eye-light device, Espansione Marketing S.p.A., Bologna, Italy) were performed. The following parameters were evaluated before and 2 weeks after the last session for each treatment: Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness questionnaire, noninvasive break-up time, tear meniscus height, redness score, meiboscore, and meibomian gland loss. Results: All patients completed regularly all the scheduled sessions, and no adverse events were reported in any of the groups. The Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness score significantly decreased after both LLLT and IPL (P < 0.001) although the improvement was significantly greater in the LLLT compared with the IPL group (-9.9 ± 3.2 vs. -6.75 ± 4.5; P = 0.014). Patients in the LLLT group showed a significantly higher increase in tear meniscus height compared with those in the IPL group (0.06 ± 0.10 mm vs. -0.01 ± 0.014; P = 0.040). In both groups, the noninvasive break-up time, redness score, meiboscore, and meibomian gland loss did not vary significantly after treatment (all P > 0.05). Conclusions: Both LLLT and IPL were safe and effective in improving ocular discomfort symptoms in patients with MGD; however, the former determined a greater improvement in symptoms and an improvement of tear volume.
Low-Level Light Therapy Versus Intense Pulsed Light for the Treatment of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: Preliminary Results From a Prospective Randomized Comparative Study
Giannaccare Giuseppe;Scalzo Giovanna Carnovale;Borselli Massimiliano;Ceravolo Domenico;Scorcia Vincenzo
2023-01-01
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of low-level light therapy (LLLT) and intense pulsed light (IPL) for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Methods: Forty eyes of 40 patients with MGD were randomized to receive either LLLT or IPL. Four weekly sessions of LLLT (MY MASK-E, Espansione Marketing S.p.A., Bologna, Italy) and IPL (Eye-light device, Espansione Marketing S.p.A., Bologna, Italy) were performed. The following parameters were evaluated before and 2 weeks after the last session for each treatment: Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness questionnaire, noninvasive break-up time, tear meniscus height, redness score, meiboscore, and meibomian gland loss. Results: All patients completed regularly all the scheduled sessions, and no adverse events were reported in any of the groups. The Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness score significantly decreased after both LLLT and IPL (P < 0.001) although the improvement was significantly greater in the LLLT compared with the IPL group (-9.9 ± 3.2 vs. -6.75 ± 4.5; P = 0.014). Patients in the LLLT group showed a significantly higher increase in tear meniscus height compared with those in the IPL group (0.06 ± 0.10 mm vs. -0.01 ± 0.014; P = 0.040). In both groups, the noninvasive break-up time, redness score, meiboscore, and meibomian gland loss did not vary significantly after treatment (all P > 0.05). Conclusions: Both LLLT and IPL were safe and effective in improving ocular discomfort symptoms in patients with MGD; however, the former determined a greater improvement in symptoms and an improvement of tear volume.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
