Abstract
Introduction
This study assessed the efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy in participants with severe evaporative dry eye disease (DED).
Methods
This randomized, controlled, single-center study included 49 adult participants (≥ 18 years) with severe evaporative DED who received either IPL therapy (n = 56 eyes) or sham therapy (n = 42 eyes) three times. The primary efficacy parameters were ocular surface disease index (OSDI) score, non-invasive tear breakup time (NITBUT), tear film lipid layer (TFLL), conjunctivocorneal staining score (CS), MG Score, meibomian gland (MG) quality, and MG expression score.
Results
The mean ages for the IPL group and the control group were 28.05 ± 3.41 years (57.1% female) and 28.14 ± 3.53 years (52.4% female), respectively. Comparison between the IPL group and the control group found significant differences in the mean OSDI score (22.16 ± 6.08 vs. 42.38 ± 6.60; P < 00.01), NITBUT (6.27 ± 0.84 vs. 3.86 ± 0.68; P < 0.001), TFLL (2.14 ± 0.44 vs. 3.45 ± 0.50; P < 0.001), MG Score (1.34 ± 0.55 vs. 1.88 ± 0.33; P < 0.001), MG quality (1.59 ± 0.07 vs. 2.67 ± 0.08), and MG expression (1.54 ± 0.57 vs. 2.45 ± 0.55) at 12 weeks follow-up; however, there was no significant difference in CS (3.32 ± 1.11 vs. 3.74 ± 1.04; P = 0.063).
Conclusion
The findings suggest that IPL therapy is clinically beneficial in ameliorating the signs and symptoms of severe evaporative dry eye disease.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Why carry out this study? |
The efficacy and safety of the intense pulsed light (IPL) device for specifically treating severe evaporative dry eye disease (DED) has not been determined. |
The impact of IPL therapy on various ocular surface parameters in participants with severe evaporative DED has not been explored. |
This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of IPL therapy in improving the signs and symptoms of evaporative DED and to perform a comparison with a sham control group. |
What was learned from the study? |
IPL can be safely used to manage signs and symptoms of evaporative DED. |
A minimum of two IPL sessions were needed to observe significant improvements. |
Introduction
Dry eye disease (DED) is multifactorial in etiology and characterized by ocular pain, visual disruption (blurred vision and hazy vision), tear film instability, and tear film hyperosmolarity, which may damage the ocular surface [1]. Some of the possible causes of DED are aging [2], menopause [3], meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) [4], Sjögren syndrome [5], conjunctival fibrotic disease [6], refractive surgery [7], and systemic [8] or topical [9, 10] drugs. Insufficient tear production or excessive evaporation of the tear film has been documented to create a hyperconcentration or hyperosmolarity of the precorneal tear film, which disrupts tear film homeostasis [11]. Tear film hyperosmolarity can cause cell morphologic alterations, inflammatory cascades, cell death, tear film instability, and a further increase in hyperosmolarity [12]. MGD causes evaporative dry eye (EDE), the most frequent form of dry eye [11]. Anti-inflammatory medications, antibiotics, warm compresses, eyelid hygiene, and meibomian gland expression are MGD treatment standards [13]. MGD has been found to be linked to eyelid skin inflammatory disorders [14]. Rosacea affects 5.46% of the adult population (range 0.09–24.1%), with 58% having MGD [15]. Ocular symptoms precede cutaneous rosacea in 15–10% of instances, indicating a subclinical variant [14, 16].
IPL is a popular therapy for facial skin rosacea and over a decade ago, Toyos et al. [17] found that IPL theraoy for facial skin rosacea improved dry eye symptoms. In standard practice, IPL pulses are administered from tragus to tragus, below the lower eyelids and including the nose, in each session. Several studies have shown that IPL treatment decreases dry eye symptoms and indicators [18,19,20]. While previous studies have reported on the benefits of IPL therapy for a wide severity spectrum of DED, none have focused on severe DED, and there is a reasonable possibility that combining a wide severity spectrum of DED into single group (i.e., mild, moderate, severe) might give us an understanding of the entire group but not a specific sub-group (i.e., the severe dry eye group). Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the treatment efficacy of IPL specifically for severe evaporative DED.
Methods
Study Design
This randomized control study was conducted by the Department of Ophthalmology, He Eye Specialist Hospital, Shenyang, China, between January and October 2021. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of He Eye Specialist Hospital (IRB2019. K002.01) and adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed and signed consent was obtained from all participants before the treatment in this study.
Inclusion criteria comprised the following: (i) age ≥ 18 years, (ii) Fitzpatrick skin types I–IV, (iii) capable and willing to comply with the treatment and follow-up obligations, (iv) a determination of severe DED based on (a) the ocular surface disease index (OSDI; a score of ≥ 33 represents severe DED), (b) a non-invasive tear film breakup time (NITBUT) of ≤ 5 s, or a conjunctivocorneal staining score (CS) of ≥ 3 points according to the Asian Dry Eye Consensus [21].
Exclusion criteria: (i) existing ocular trauma, infectious diseases, recent surgical history; (ii) skin defects, pigmentation, moles, scars in the treatment area, skin cancer; (iii) autoimmune diseases, skin allergies; (iv) pregnancy or lactation; and (v) Fitzpatrick skin type V or VI.
Treatment
All treatments used the Toyos protocol and patients received three sessions separated by 3 weeks. The M22 IPL system (M22; Lumenis, Yokneam, Israel) is a new-generation IPL device with optimal pulse technology (OPT) and a modular laser multi-application platform that assures steady and predictable fluence throughout each flash. The wavelength of light emitted by the M22 OPT system varies from 515 to 1200 nm (nm) and is emitted by a xenon lamp. Adjusting a 560 nm filter on the M22 OPT system, appreciate energy for various skin tones can be achieved (range of 11–14 J/cm2). At day 0, day 21, and day 42, each patient completed a series of three IPL or sham therapy sessions (Fig. 1).
Experimental Design
Participants were randomly allocated to one of two groups (IPL or sham) and received IPL treatment with 12 homogeneously spaced pulses of light to both eyes at days 0, day 21, and day 42, as administered by a non-masked qualified clinician who was not engaged in data collection. Computer-generated random numbers assigned successively enrolled individuals. The investigator who collected data at days 0 (baseline), 21 (week 3), 42 (week 6) and 82 (week 12) from all participants (IPL and control groups) was not aware of the participants’ therapy allocations. At day 0, day 21, day 42, and day 82, participants wore opaque goggles and ultrasonic gel was liberally administered to their targeted skin. The IPL therapy group received 12 bilateral light pulses to the periocular and cheek regions. In the sham therapy group, opaque goggles and ultrasound gel were applied, and a non-active IPL device was placed on the periocular region and moved 12 times to simulate treating different areas around the eyes. In the same room, an active IPL device was fired 12 times to simulate the acoustics of active IPL device therapy. Participants were instructed not to use any additional dry eye medications or eyedrops, including preservative-free artificial tears, throughout the course of this study (Fig. 1). All participants were requested to have their designated IPL or sham therapy session at day 0, day 21, and day 42; participants failing to do so were excluded from the study.
Treatment Procedure
Ultrasound gel was generously applied to the lower eyelids and preauricular region. Ultrasound gel was generously applied to the lower eyelids and preauricular region. Opaque goggles was worn by participlants while 12 light pulses were applied from the left preauricular area, over the cheekbones and nose, to the right preauricular area, reaching up to the inferior border of both eyes (regions of application overlapped somewhat). On each treatment day, the participants went makeup free and were advised to avoid direct sun exposure for 1 month following the IPL treatment to prevent face pigmentation.
Clinical Assessment
Before every OPT-IPL therapy, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), OSDI, NITBUT, tear film lipid layer (TFLL), endothelial cell count (ECC), intraocular pressure (IOP), meibomian gland (MG), and CS assessments were performed in this order at day 0, day 21 (3 W), day 42 (6 W), and day 82 (12 W). An experienced doctor administered the IPL and sham therapy, and another trained doctor (blinded to participant allocation) gathered test data.
IOP was assessed using a non-contact tonometer (NT-510, NIDEK, Japan). ECC was assessed using a corneal endothelial counter (SP-3000P, TOPCON, Japan). NITBUT was assessed using the Keratograph 5M (Oculus, Germany) topographer. Three consecutive measurements were taken, and the median value was entered as the final reading.
TFLL quality was assessed noninvasively via TFLL interferometry using a DR-1 instrument (Kowa, Nagoya, Japan). The results were graded using the Yokoi dry eye (DE) severity grading system, where grade 1 corresponds to a somewhat gray color and uniform distribution, grade 2 corresponds to a somewhat gray color and non-uniform distribution, grade 3 corresponds to a few colors and a nonuniform distribution, and grade 4 corresponds to many colors and a nonuniform distribution
Meibography (MG Score). Keratograph 5M (Oculus, Germany) was used to capture the infrared images of the upper and lower eyelids after turning it over and exposing the meibomian glands. Partial or complete loss of the meibomian glands was scored for each eyelid using the following grades (MG Score): grade 0, no loss of meibomian glands; grade 1, area loss was less than one-third of the total meibomian gland area; grade 2, area loss was between one-third and two-thirds; grade 3, area loss was more than two-thirds.
Meibomian gland function. The meibum quality and meibomian gland expressibility of the upper eyelid were assessed. (i) Meibum quality: eight meibomian glands in the middle parts of the eyelid were assessed using a scale of 0–3 for each gland: 0, clear; 1, cloudy; 2, cloudy and granular; and 3, thick (like toothpaste). (ii) MG expression: five meibomian glands in the middle part were evaluated on a scale of 0–3: 0, all glands expressible; 1, 3–4 glands expressible; 2, 1–2 glands expressible; and 3, no glands expressible. The average scores of these eight glands were calculated as the total score.
Using the methods of Arita et al. [22], the double vital staining test was used to assess conjunctival and corneal epithelium damage. The conjunctival sac was injected with 2 microliters of a preservative-free mixture containing 1% sodium fluorescein and 1% lissamine green. The eye was sectionalized into three equal sections representing the temporal conjunctiva, cornea, and nasal conjunctiva. A staining score (maximum: 3 points; minimum: 0 points) was assigned to each area. The CS was used to record the combined results from all three sections on a scale from 0 (normal) to 9 (severe) [23].
Statistical Analysis
The statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS statistics software (version 25.0; SPSS Inc., United States). The mean standard deviation (SD) was used to express descriptive statistics for continuous variables, whereas number (percentage) was used for binary variables. The chi-square test was used to analyze categorical data. Using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, the normality of the variables was determined. A linear mixed model with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis was used to evaluate repeated measurements of continuous variables, including IOP, ECC, BCVA, OSDI score, and NITBUT. Generalized linear mixed model analysis with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis was used for repeated measurements of discrete variables, including the TFLL, CS score, and MG assessments. A P value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to show statistical significance.
Results
Initially 30 participants were enrolled in each group. Two participants in the IPL group and 9 participants in the control group did not complete the study (Fig. 1). The final analysis included 28 (56 eyes) participants in the IPL group and 21 (42 eyes) participants in the control group. Table 1 displays the demographic information regarding treatments and the control group. Age, gender, duration of dry eye disease, and other ocular parameters were found to be similar when comparing the two groups (P > 0.05).
The mean OSDI score at baseline was recorded as 40.98 ± 7.29 and 42.02 ± 6.57 for the IPL and control groups, respectively (Fig. 2). Significant differences between the groups in the OSDI score were found at 3 W, 6 W, and 12 W (Table 2).
The mean NITBUT at baseline assessment was 3.60 ± 0.59 and 3.79 ± 0.61 s for the IPL and control groups, respectively (P > 0.05) (Fig. 3). Significant differences between the groups were found at 3 W, 6 W, and 12 W (Table 2) (Fig. 3).
The mean TFLL score was not statistically different between the IPL group and the control group at baseline (Fig. 4). A significant difference in mean TFLL score between the IPL group and the control group was found at W 6 and W 12 (Table 2).
Based on the Asian DE assessment system, the CS severity score increases from 0 to 9. At baseline, the mean CS score was 3.67 ± 1.34 and 3.71 ± 1.09 in the IPL group and the control group, respectively (Fig. 5). At 3 W, 6 W, and 12 W, the CS score improved to 3.61 ± 1.27, 3.46 ± 1.16, and 3.32 ± 1.11, respectively in the IPL group (Table 2).
The mean MG Score at baseline was 1.93 ± 0.26 and 1.83 ± 0.38 in the IPL group and the control group, respectively (P > 0.05) (Fig. 6). Significant differences between the groups were found at 3 W, 6 W, and 12 W (Table 2).
The mean MG quality score at baseline was 2.68 ± 0.07 and 2.55 ± 0.08 for the IPL and control groups (P > 0.05), respectively (Fig. 7). A significant difference between the groups was found at 6 W and 12 W (Table 2).
The mean MG expression score was found to be significantly improved in the IPL group at 3 W, 6 W, and 12 W when compared to the control group (Fig. 8) (Table 2).
During the course of the trial, no systemic adverse events were recorded. BCVA did not vary substantially between the baseline and all subsequent visits in either group. The mean IOP was not significantly different from baseline for both the IPL group and the control group. There was no significant difference between the IPL group and the control group with regards to ECC across all visits. No depigmentation, blistering, edema, ocular surface redness, hair loss, or eyelash loss was noted after IPL therapy (Table 3).
Discussion
While the mechanism of action of IPL for treating DED is not entirely understood, but the majority of authors suggest that this therapy results in the destruction of superficial blood vessels [24, 25], with a subsequent reduction in local inflammation [26,27,28], and antimicrobial [29], anti-inflammatory [28] effects. Currently, IPL therapy has been found to be beneficial for various forms of DED [18, 30,31,32]. Throughout their development, IPL devices have been changed to lessen the adverse effects of IPL and broaden its indications [33]. The newer versions permit quartz or sapphire crystals to filter the wavelength spectrum in the direction of longer wavelengths, which affect deeper skin structures relative to the epidermis [33]. The detachable filters also allow the selection of the wavelength required for certain lesions [34, 35]. In a similar fashion, the pulse energy has been fractionated, and novel cooling mechanisms have been developed to prevent skin harm [34, 35]. Among the possible adverse effects, discomfort during administration is the most common. This has been alleviated by the installation of modern refrigeration systems [35]. There have been reports of skin erythema and edema hours or (less often) days following therapy; however, both are transient. Pigmentation alterations and hypertrophic scars are seldom seen. Ocular problems have also been reported when using high fluences such as 20 J/cm2 [34]. There have been reports of anterior uveitis, iris transillumination abnormalities, and modifications that result in eye synechiae and pupillary obstruction followed by angle closure [36,37,38,39].
In our study there were no adverse events reported by the participants. At the 3-week assessment, among the seven dry eye parameters observed in our study (OSDI, NITBUT, TFLL, CS, MG Score, MG quality, and MG expression), CS and meibomian gland quality showed no significant difference between the IPL and control groups. However, at the 6-week and 12-week assessments, only one parameter (CS) did not show a significant improvement, suggesting that the benefits of IPL therapy for severe EDE can be realized after receiving at least two sessions. The major indicator of ocular surface injury is CS [40], which is considered a significant factor in the DED diagnostic process [41]. Numerous researchers have attempted to demonstrate the existence of a correlation between DED symptomatology severity and corneal staining in MGD participants. Some studies have found weak positive correlations between symptomatology severity and corneal staining [42], while others have demonstrated that there is no correlation between the two parameters [43,44,45]. Recently, Llorens-Quintana et al. [46] examined the relationship between MG irregularity, dry eye symptomatology, and several ocular surface indicators, such as corneal staining. They noted that there was no correlation between corneal staining and MG irregularity or MG loss. Xiao et al. [47] studied a sample of the two main MGD delivery categories—high delivery and low delivery—which can be segregated into four MGD states: hypersecretory MGD, undefined MGD, hyposecretory MGD, and obstructive MGD). They discovered that low-delivery groups (hyposecretory and obstructive MGD) had more severe dry eye symptoms and higher ocular surface staining scores than the high-delivery MGD groups. The current investigation revealed that while signs and symptoms of EDE can be treated with IPL therapy, a longer therapy course might be needed to improve the CS score.
This research has significant drawbacks. First, the age range of the individuals in our study did not include the elderly, so the results cannot be generalized to all the population, since DE is more frequent among the elderly. Second, this research did not include parameters such as inflammatory indicators and osmolarity, which contribute to dry eye. Nonetheless, based on the results of previous research, one might assume that these characteristics may be linked with TFLL [28, 42, 46, 48]. Lastly, a larger sample size is needed to improve the study's statistical power.
Conclusion
In summary, the findings of this current study suggest that OPT-IPL therapy significantly improves signs and symptoms of EDE following a minimum of two sessions of IPL therapy.
References
Tsubota K, Yokoi N, Shimazaki J, Watanabe H, Dogru M, Yamada M, et al. New perspectives on dry eye definition and diagnosis: a consensus report by the Asia Dry Eye Society. Ocular Surf. 2017;15:65–76.
Schein OD, Munuz B, Tielsch JM, Bandeen-Roche K, West S. Prevalence of dry eye among the elderly. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;124:723–8.
Evans V, Millar TJ, Eden JA, Eden MDP. Menopause, hormone replacement therapy and tear function. In: Sullivan DA, Stern ME, Tsubota K, Dartt DA, Sullivan RM, Bromberg BB, editors. Lacrimal gland, tear film, and dry eye syndromes 3. Advances in experimental medicine and biology, vol. 506. Boston: Springer; 2002. p. 1029–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0717-8_145. Accessed 29 May 2020.
Valencia-Nieto L, Novo-Diez A, Blanco-Vázquez M, López-Miguel A. Therapeutic instruments targeting meibomian gland dysfunction. Ophthalmol Ther. 2020;9:797–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-020-00304-3. Accessed 3 Dec 2022.
Kang YS, Lee HS, Li Y, Choi W, Yoon KC. Manifestation of meibomian gland dysfunction in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome, non-Sjögren’s dry eye, and non-dry eye controls. Int Ophthalmol. 2017;38:1161–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0577-4. Accessed 3 Dec 2022.
Faraj HG, Hoang-Xuan T. Chronic cicatrizing conjunctivitis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2001;12:250–7 https://journals.lww.com/co-ophthalmology/Fulltext/2001/08000/Chronic_cicatrizing_conjunctivitis.3.aspx. Accessed 3 Dec 2022.
Sambhi RDS, Sambhi GDS, Mather R, Malvankar-Mehta MS. Dry eye after refractive surgery: a meta-analysis. Can J Ophthalmol. 2020;55:99–106.
Fraunfelder FT, Sciubba JJ, Mathers WD. The role of medications in causing dry eye. J Ophthalmol. 2012;285851.
Askeroglu U, Alleyne B, Guyuron B. Pharmaceutical and herbal products that may contribute to dry eyes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:159–67. https://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Fulltext/2013/01000/Pharmaceutical_and_Herbal_Products_That_May.28.aspx. Accessed 3 Dec 2022.
Craig JP, Nelson JD, Azar DT, Belmonte C, Bron AJ, Chauhan SK, et al. TFOS DEWS II report executive summary. Ocul Surf. 2017;15:802–12.
Bron AJ, de Paiva CS, Chauhan SK, Bonini S, Gabison EE, Jain S, et al. TFOS DEWS II pathophysiology report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15:438–510. https://www.theocularsurfacejournal.com/article/S1542-0124(17)30134-9/pdf. Accessed 12 May 2018.
Bron AJ, Tiffany JM, Yokoi N, Gouveia SM. Using osmolarity to diagnose dry eye: a compartmental hypothesis and review of our assumptions. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2002;506B:1087–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0717-8_153. Accessed 3 Dec 2022.
Thode AR, Latkany RA. Current and emerging therapeutic strategies for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Drugs. 2015;75:1177–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-015-0432-8. Accessed 3 Dec 2022.
Machalińska A, Zakrzewska A, Markowska A, Safranow K, Wiszniewska B, Parafiniuk M, et al. Morphological and functional evaluation of meibomian gland dysfunction in rosacea patients. Curr Eye Res. 2015;41:1029–34. https://doi.org/10.3109/02713683.2015.1088953. Accessed 3 Dec 2022.
Tavassoli S, Wong N, Chan E. Ocular manifestations of rosacea: a clinical review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021;49:104–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.13900. Accessed 3 Dec 2022.
Viso E, Rodríguez-Ares MT, Abelenda D, Oubiña B, Gude F. Prevalence of asymptomatic and symptomatic meibomian gland dysfunction in the general population of Spain. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:2601–6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22427596/. Accessed 3 Dec 2022.
Toyos R. Intense pulsed light for dry eye syndrome. Cataract Refract Surg Today. 2009 Apr;71–3. https://crstoday.com/wp-content/themes/crst/assets/downloads/CRST0409_14.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2019.
Yang L, Pazo EE, Zhang Q, Wu Y, Song Y, Qin G, et al. Treatment of contact lens related dry eye with intense pulsed light. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2021;101449. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367048421000606. Accessed 29 May 2021.
Rong B, Tang Y, Liu R, Tu P, Qiao J, Song W, et al. Long-term effects of intense pulsed light combined with meibomian gland expression in the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction. Photomed Laser Surg. 2018;36:562–7. https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2018.4499. Accessed 27 July 2020.
Dell SJ, Gaster RN, Barbarino SC, Cunningham DN. Prospective evaluation of intense pulsed light and meibomian gland expression efficacy on relieving signs and symptoms of dry eye disease due to meibomian gland dysfunction. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:817–27. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28496300. Accessed 20 May 2019.
Uchino Y, Uchino M, Dogru M, Ward S, Yokoi N, Tsubota K. Changes in dry eye diagnostic status following implementation of revised Japanese dry eye diagnostic criteria. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2012;56:8–13.
Arita R, Itoh K, Inoue K, Amano S. Noncontact infrared meibography to document age-related changes of the meibomian glands in a normal population. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:911–5.
Yokoi N, Takehisa Y, Kinoshita S. Correlation of tear lipid layer interference patterns with the diagnosis and severity of dry eye. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;122:818–24.
Weiss RA, Ross EV, Tanghetti EA, Vasily DB, Childs JJ, Smirnov MZ, et al. Characterization of an optimized light source and comparison to pulsed dye laser for superficial and deep vessel clearance. Lasers Surg Med. 2011;43:92–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.21032. Accessed 4 Dec 2022.
Taudorf EH, Olsen J, Lindsø Andersen P, Bouazzi D, Jemec GBE. Dynamic optical coherence tomography imaging of telangiectasia prior to intense pulsed light treatment—an opportunity to target treatment? Lasers Surg Med. 2021;53:212–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.23280. Accessed 4 Dec 2022.
Wang B, Wu Y, Luo YJ, Xu XG, Xu TH, Chen JZS, et al. Combination of intense pulsed light and fractional CO2 laser treatments for patients with acne with inflammatory and scarring lesions. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2013;38:344–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/ced.12010. Accessed 4 Dec 2022.
Zoccali G, Piccolo D, Allegra P, Giuliani M. Melasma treated with intense pulsed light. Aesthetic Plastic Surg. 2010;34:486–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-010-9485-y. Accessed 4 Dec 2022.
Liu R, Rong B, Tu P, Tang Y, Song W, Toyos R, et al. Analysis of cytokine levels in tears and clinical correlations after intense pulsed light treating meibomian gland dysfunction. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;183:81–90.
Liu J, Liu L, Zhou L, Chen L, Chen X, Xiong X, et al. The effect of intense pulsed light on the skin microbiota and epidermal barrier in patients with mild to moderate acne vulgaris. Lasers Surg Med. 2021;53:1348–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.23426. Accessed 4 Dec 2022.
Pazo EE, Huang H, Fan Q, Zhang C, Yue Y, Yang L, et al. Intense pulse light for treating post-LASIK refractory dry eye. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg. 2021;39:155–63. https://doi.org/10.1089/photob.2020.4931. Accessed 1 Sept 2021.
Wu Y, Li J, Hu M, Zhao Y, Lin X, Chen Y, et al. Comparison of two intense pulsed light patterns for treating patients with meibomian gland dysfunction. Int Ophthalmol. 2020;40:1695–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01337-0. Accessed 10 Feb 2021.
Li D, Lu J, Hu Z, Liang J, Lin S. Intense pulsed light therapy to inhibit meibomian gland inflammation: untargeted metabolomics analysis of meibomian gland secretions. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg. 2022;40:715–27. https://doi.org/10.1089/photob.2022.0058. Accessed 4 Dec 2022.
Wat H, Wu DC, Rao J, Goldman MP. Application of intense pulsed light in the treatment of dermatologic disease: a systematic review. Dermatolog Surg. 2014;40:359–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsu.12424. Accessed 4 Dec 2022.
Cai Y, Zhu Y, Wang Y, Xiang W. Intense pulsed light treatment for inflammatory skin diseases: a review. Lasers Med Sci. 2022;37:3085–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-022-03620-1. Accessed 4 Dec 2022.
Bitter P. Intense pulsed light: where we are now? Dermatolog Rev. 2021;2:60–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/der2.63. Accessed 4 Dec 2022.
Jewsbury H, Morgan F. Uveitis and iris photoablation secondary to intense pulsed light therapy. Can J Ophthalmol. 2012;47:e13–4. http://www.canadianjournalofophthalmology.ca/article/S0008418212000208/fulltext. Accessed 4 Dec 2022.
Lee WW, Murdock J, Albini TA, O’brien TP, Levine ML. Ocular damage secondary to intense pulse light therapy to the face. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;27:263–5. https://journals.lww.com/op-rs/Fulltext/2011/07000/Ocular_Damage_Secondary_to_Intense_Pulse_Light.9.aspx. Accessed 4 Dec 2022.
Javey G, Schwartz SG, Albini TA. Ocular complication of intense pulsed light therapy: iris photoablation. Dermatolog Surg. 2010;36:1466–8. https://journals.lww.com/dermatologicsurgery/Fulltext/2010/09000/Ocular_Complication_of_Intense_Pulsed_Light.21.aspx. Accessed 4 Dec 2022.
Pang ALY, Wells KF. Bilateral anterior uveitis after intense pulsed light therapy for pigmented eyelid lesions. Dermatol Surg. 2008;34(9):1276–9. https://journals.lww.com/dermatologicsurgery/fulltext/2008/09000/bilateral_anterior_uveitis_after_intense_pulsed.21.aspx. Accessed 4 Dec 2022.
Bandamwar KL, Papas EB, Garrett Q. Fluorescein staining and physiological state of corneal epithelial cells. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2014;37:213–23.
Wolffsohn JS, Arita R, Chalmers R, Djalilian A, Dogru M, Dumbleton K, et al. TFOS DEWS II diagnostic methodology report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15:539–74.
Sullivan BD, Whitmer D, Nichols KK, Tomlinson A, Foulks GN, Geerling G, et al. An objective approach to dry eye disease severity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:6125–30.
Nichols KK, Foulks GN, Bron AJ, Glasgow BJ, Dogru M, Tsubota K, et al. The International Workshop on Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: executive summary. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:1922–9.
Borchman D, Foulks GN, Yappert MC, Bell J, Wells E, Neravetla S, et al. Human meibum lipid conformation and thermodynamic changes with meibomian-gland dysfunction. Investig Opthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:3805. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.10-6514. Accessed 3 Sep 2021.
Pult H, Riede-Pult BH, Nichols JJ. Relation between upper and lower lidsʼ meibomian gland morphology, tear film, and dry eye. Optomet Vis Sci. 2012;89:E310–5. http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/2012/03000/Relation_Between_Upper_and_Lower_Lids__Meibomian.10.aspx. Accessed 19 Sep 2017.
Llorens-Quintana C, Rico-Del-Viejo L, Syga P, Madrid-Costa D, Iskander DR. Meibomian gland morphology: the influence of structural variations on gland function and ocular surface parameters. Cornea. 2019;38:1506–12.
Xiao J, Adil MY, Chen X, Utheim ØA, Ræder S, Tønseth KA, et al. Functional and morphological evaluation of meibomian glands in the assessment of meibomian gland dysfunction subtype and severity. Am J Ophthalmol. 2020;209:160–7.
Stefania T, Piergiorgio T, Beniamino B, di Zazzo A, Jacopo M, Stefano B, et al. The role of intense pulsed light (IPL) in the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Eur J Plast Surg. 2019;42:563–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-019-01540-y. Accessed 25 Jan 2021.
Acknowledgements
We thank the participants in this study. This work was supported by He Eye Specialist Hospital, Shenyang, China. The authors have no proprietary interest in any of the products mentioned in this article.
Funding
This study was entirely funded by He Eye Specialist Hospital, Shenyang, China. No support was received for the publication of this article. The journal’s Rapid Service Fee was funded by the authors.
Author Contributions
Conception and design of the research: GQ, JC, LL, YX, QZ, YW, LY, SM, JEM, LX, WH, SY, XH; analysis and interpretation of the data: GQ, EEP; writing original draft preparation: GQ; critical revision of the manuscript (reviewing and editing): GQ and EEP; supervision: XH, SY, and EEP.
Disclosures
Guanghao Qin, Jiayan Chen, Liangzhe Li, Yang Xia, Qing Zhang, Yi Wu, Lanting Yang, Salissou Moutari, Jonathan E. Moore, Ling Xu, Wei He, Sile Yu, Xingru He, and Emmanuel Eric Pazo have nothing to disclose.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
The study was conducted in compliance with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Institutional Review Board of the He Eye Specialist Hospital, Shenyang, China (IRB2019. K002.01). Documented informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study. In the present study, all components with any individually identifiable information were removed from the dataset.
Data Availability
Anonymized datasets generated and analyzed during the current study will be made available on reasonable request by the corresponding author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Qin, G., Chen, J., Li, L. et al. Managing Severe Evaporative Dry Eye with Intense Pulsed Light Therapy. Ophthalmol Ther 12, 1059–1071 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-023-00649-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-023-00649-5