• Chao Liu, Qi Zhou, and Zi-Qing Gao.
• Department of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, Anhui Province, China.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Dec 23; 101 (51): e32292e32292.

PurposeThis review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light treatment combined with meibomian gland expression treatments in meibomian gland dysfunction.MethodsWe conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of intense pulsed light treatment and meibomian gland expression treatments in the treatment of dry eye disease. The meibomian gland yielding secretion score was the primary outcome, whereas the secondary outcomes included the Meiboscore, tear breakup time in seconds, standard patient evaluation for eye dryness and corneal fluorescein staining.ResultsThis study consisted of 6 trials with 326 patients. Significantly greater improvement was observed in meibomian gland yielding secretion score at 1 month [mean difference (MD): 13.69 (95% CI, 11.98, 15.40)] and at 3 months [MD: 11.03 (95% confidence interval (CI), 10.27, 11.80)], low meibomian gland yielding secretion score at 1 month [MD: 6.92 (95% CI, 5.49, 8.34)] and at 3 months [MD: 6.80 (95% CI, 5.01, 8.59)], up meibomian gland yielding secretion score at 1 month [MD: 6.41 (95% CI, 4.12, 8.70)] and at 3 months [MD: 8.06 (95% CI, 5.70, 10.42)] and tear breakup time at 1 month [MD: 2.38 (95% CI, 1.83, 2.92)] and at 3 months [MD: 1.82 (95% CI, 1.48, 2.19)] in the IPL-MGX group than in the MGX group.ConclusionsIPL-MGX is safer and more efficacious as compared to the MGX alone in the treatment of patients with meibomian gland dysfunction-related dry eye. We recommend discussing the decision with the ophthalmologist for an appropriate choice.Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

10 keywords...

hide…