Low-Level Light Therapy Versus Intense Pulsed Light for the Treatment of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: Preliminary Results From a Prospective Randomized Comparative Study

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.

Serial Sessions of a Novel Low-Level Light Therapy Device for Home Treatment of Dry Eye Disease

“…The post-treatment improvements obtained with the novel mask used at home are consistent with those reported after the in-office use of the same technology (LLLT), both when used as a stand-alone therapy and in combination with IPL [ 17 – 23 ]. A recent prospective study that directly compared LLLT in conjunction to IPL versus tear substitutes demonstrated the superiority of device-assisted therapy over the topical one [ 26 ].…”

“…Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of in-office LLLT used alone or in combination with intense pulsed light (IPL) in the setting of DED owing to MGD [17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. More recently, the same LLLT technology has been miniaturized into such a portable package (mymask Ò ) in order to provide a small yet powerful solution of light-based therapy for home use.…”

Letter Regarding: Low-Level Light Therapy Versus Intense Pulse Light for the Treatment of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction

“…4 This helps to reduce observer bias in some tests, such as meibomian gland dysfunction analysis, leading to more reliable results. Although the results reported by Giannaccare et al 1 are in agreement with different studies included in a recent systematic review on the topic, 5 it would have been useful to analyze the outcome measure change between the 2 procedures to better elucidate the benefits of each treatment. The change could be defined as the increment (Δ), which is the difference between the last visit (LV) and baseline (B) “Δ = LV − B.” In addition, it would also have been interesting to analyze the effects of both procedures on meibomian gland secretion reporting the following variables: (1) meibomian gland yielding secretion score, (2) meibomian gland yielding clear secretion, and (3) meibomian gland yielding liquid secretion.…”

Effects of Serial Sessions of Activa Mask for the Treatment of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction

“…To overcome these drawbacks, novel devices specifically designed for in-office MGD management—able to produce heating with or without humidity and massaging—have been developed and commercialized in recent years [ 8 – 11 ]. Among these, Activa mask (SBM Sistemi, Turin, Italy) was recently developed, and preliminary data have shown positive short-term effects (30 min after a single mask session) with significant improvement of both tear film parameters and ocular discomfort symptoms when used both alone and in combination with intense pulsed light [ 12 , 13 ].…”