Efficiency of Combining Heated Eye Mask with Intense Pulsed Light Therapy as a Treatment Option for Evaporative Dry Eye Disease.

Background and objectives: The study aimed to establish the efficiency of combining the Posiforlid heated eye mask with intense pulsed light therapy (IPL), as a treatment strategy for evaporative dry eye disease. Materials and methods: This study included 110 patients, respectively 220 eyes, diagnosed with evaporative dry eye disease, patients between 18 and 86 years old, divided into two study groups. The first one, the control group, consisted of 73 patients treated with IPL therapy, and the second of 37 patients, who underwent IPL therapy associated with Posiforlid heated eye mask. Subjective evolution was assessed using an eye fitness test (EFT) regarding symptomatology. Objective assessment of the ocular surface was performed by tear film stability evaluation (TFSE), non-invasive first break-up time (NIFBUT), non-invasive average breakup time (NIABUT), ocular surface inflammatory evaluation (OSIE), measuring of the central tear meniscus height (CTMH) and thinnest tear meniscus height (TTMH). The assessment was performed at the beginning of the IPL treatment, during the IPL sessions, at the end of the IPL treatment, and afterward, at 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: Tear film stability has increased in both study cases, but no statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups studied. For the control group, tear film stability evaluation (TFSE) started from 310.56 ± 389.54 at baseline (time 1 presentation) to 114.40 ± 122.90 after 12 months, and for the heated mask group, from 391.11 ± 456.45 (time 1 presentation) to 97.38 ± 105.98 after 12 months. NIABUT increased from 10.72 ± 4.90 seconds to 14.79 ± 3.72 seconds in the control group, and from 11.11 ± 5.08 seconds to 15.84 ± 2.26 seconds in the second group. OSIE decreased, as expected, from 7.18 ± 7.93 percent in the control group to 2.24 ± 2.38 percent after 12 months and from 7.42 ± 7.77 percent to 2.47 ± 2.50 percent in the Posiforlid group. Although significantly lower, there was no significant difference between the two studied groups. No statistically significant changes were registered in the studied quantitative parameters. Using the EFT test, great improvements were registered regarding symptomatology, with a score increasing from 29.99 ± 8.60 to 39.10 ± 5.08 in the control group and from 27.35 ± 9.24 to 38.35 ± 4.62 in the other group. Again, the same statistical result was registered on this variable. Conclusions: The improvement of tear film stability, ocular surface inflammatory condition, and subjective symptoms during IPL therapy sessions and the first year of observation after the completion of the treatment was not necessarily increased by the additional use of a heated eye mask. Abbreviations: IPL = intense pulsed light therapy, EFT = eye fitness test, NIFBUT = non-invasive first break-up time, NIABUT = non-invasive average break-up time, OSIE = ocular surface inflammatory evaluation, TFSE = tear film stability evaluation, CTMH = central tear meniscus height, TTMH = thinnest tear meniscus height, DED = dry eye disease, MGD = meibomian gland dysfunction, SD = standard deviation.

Intense Pulsed Light Therapy for Dry Eye Disease: Analyzing Temporal Changes in Tear Film Stability and Ocular Surface between IPL Sessions.

BACKGROUND: Dry eye disease (DED), a prevalent condition with a multifactorial etiology, significantly impacts global health by causing discomfort and visual disturbance. This historical cohort study evaluates the efficacy of Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) therapy on meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD)-related evaporative DED. METHODS: The study involved 110 patients (220 eyes) who underwent IPL therapy. Ethical approval was secured, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. A Tearcheck® (ESWvision, Houdan, France) device was used for ocular surface evaluation, measuring tear film stability (NIFBUT, NIABUT), tear film quantity (CTMH, TTMH), and inflammation (OSIE). The study assessed tear film and ocular surface health across multiple IPL sessions. RESULTS: Significant improvements were observed in subjective symptoms (EFT score increased from 29.10 ± 8.87 to 35.91 ± 7.03, p < 0.01), tear film stability (NIFBUT increased from 9.37 ± 6.04 to 10.78 ± 5.83 s, p < 0.01; NIABUT increased from 11.07 ± 4.98 to 12.34 ± 4.66 s, p < 0.01), and tear film surface evaluation (TFSE score decreased from 337.78 ± 414.08 to 206.02 ± 240.44, p < 0.01). Tear film quantity remained unchanged (CTMH and TTMH, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: IPL therapy is a promising treatment for DED, improving symptoms and ocular surface health. Further research is warranted to explore long-term efficacy and optimization.

Ophthalmic Vein Thrombosis Associated with Factor V Leiden and MTHFR Mutations.

Superior ophthalmic vein thrombosis (SOVT) is a rare clinical entity that may be associated with hypercoagulability status. We present a case of a 77-year-old woman who presented to the emergency department complaining of eye ptosis, chemosis and conjunctival congestion in the right eye (RE). The ophthalmological examination revealed best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0.5 for the right eye (RE) 0.5 and 0.06 for the left eye (LE). Intraocular pressure (IOP) was 25 mmHg in RE and 14 mmHg in LE. Non-contrast computed tomography (CT) of the brain and orbits revealed a hyperreflectivity at the level of the right ophthalmic vein and inferior rectus muscle hypertrophy. An extensive hypercoagulable panel was completed and we found a positive result for Factor V Leiden (heterozygous mutation) and methyl-enetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR-C677T homozygous mutations). Systemic steroidal anti-inflammatory and anticoagulant treatments were started immediately. Gradual resolution of symptoms was noted during the hospitalization, and BCVA in her RE was established at 0.7 at the 10-week follow-up.