Department of Ophthalmology, University Magna Græcia of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy.
Department of Translational Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Cornea. 2023 Feb 1;42(2):141-144. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002997. Epub 2022 Feb 2.
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).
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.
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).
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.
本研究旨在评估和比较低水平光疗（LLLT）和强脉冲光（IPL）治疗睑板腺功能障碍（MGD）的安全性和疗效。
40 例 MGD 患者的 40 只眼随机分为 LLLT 组或 IPL 组。每周进行 4 次 LLLT（意大利博洛尼亚 Espansione Marketing S.p.A. 的 MY MASK-E）和 IPL（意大利博洛尼亚 Espansione Marketing S.p.A. 的 Eye-light 装置）治疗。两种治疗方法均在末次治疗后 2 周时评价以下参数：干眼患者主观症状评估、非侵入性泪膜破裂时间、泪膜高度、眼红评分、睑板腺评分和睑板腺缺失。
所有患者均定期完成了所有预定的治疗，且两组均未报告任何不良反应。两种治疗方法均可显著降低标准干眼患者症状评估评分（P<0.001），但 LLLT 组的改善程度显著大于 IPL 组（-9.9±3.2 对-6.75±4.5；P=0.014）。LLLT 组泪膜高度的增加明显高于 IPL 组（0.06±0.10 mm 对-0.01±0.014；P=0.040）。两组治疗后非侵入性泪膜破裂时间、眼红评分、睑板腺评分和睑板腺缺失均无明显变化（均 P>0.05）。
LLLT 和 IPL 均可安全有效地改善 MGD 患者的眼部不适症状；然而，前者可显著改善症状和泪液量。
